British warning: Islamist Extremism and Political Turmoil in Bangladesh

Bangladesh stands at a critical juncture as political instability, rising extremism, and international scrutiny challenge its democratic future. This interview looks at internal dynamics, regional tensions, and global pressures shaping the nation’s trajectory, offering insights into the complexities of its current crisis and it’s far-reaching implications for South Asia and beyond.

A few weeks ago, a group of British MPs have prepared a report on the situation of Bangladesh. Some days later an Indian envoy also visited Dhaka to meet with the interim government. During this meeting several issues lead to heated statements from both sides. One of the issue was the violence against minorities in Bangladesh. Another issue was illegal immigration. Given this context, I decided to speak to Bangladeshi-Swedish writer Anisur Rahman. In the interview below, Rahman tries to help us understand the internal politics, events, and their possible impact on India-Bangladesh relations and larger South Asia in detail.

What is the report submitted by British MPs to foreign minister David Lammy on Bangladesh about?

Anisur Rahman: British Foreign Minister David Lammy was warned over rise of Islamist extremism and political turmoil in Bangladesh. A cross-party group of MPs have written to David Lammy with a major report about Bangladesh listing a series of alarming conclusions, including the gaining of ground by Islamist extremists following the collapse of Sheikh Hasina’s government at the start of August 2024.

The all-party parliamentary group (APPG) of the Commonwealth has recorded more than 2,000 atrocities since the fall of Hasina’s government and warned that the current regime may be weaponising the legal system to exact revenge.

Do you think it could have an impact on the ground in Bangladesh?

Anisur Rahman: It may open the eyes of international communities. According to media reports, the APPG is supposed to send the report to all concerned international development partners. I am tired of witnessing diplomatic ’lipsing’ and shallow reports that provide nothing more than routine observations with little value. This report will be a challenge to diplomatic routine and robotic statements.

It will also expose the fabricated image of Dr. Muhammad Yunus made by a number of media outlets in Dhaka along with Western media. Norway committed an imperial crime by giving the Nobel Prize to a profile like Yunus who is, in fact, an enemy of the people and identified corrupt banker.

This report could be the basis of a thorough investigation about what exactly is happening under the leadership of a Nobel laureate to hinder democracy, stability and security of life and property. Following this report, there will be a different and closer interpretation of the existing situation in Bangladesh. This report will make it difficult for the Yunus regime to delay the possible general elections. The regime will face intensified international pressure for elections as early as possible as well as securing stability, democracy and security of public life.

Now the elements in the Yunus regime have to face the challenging question from their international partners about their collaboration with extremists in Bangladesh.

What types of issues in Bangladesh require international influence?

Anisur Rahman: Modern state functions require multi-level international influence in terms of export, import, security, drawing foreign investment, development aid, foreign credit, bilateral dialogue, and building the country’s image.

Does Bangladesh have a past of working with interest partners to improve its domestic situation?

Anisur Rahman: Bangladesh traditionally exercises balanced diplomacy following the Non Alliance Movement (NAM) spirit. The country runs many bilateral and multilateral projects and programmes in different sectors from development to trade and commerce. Partners cover countries in all continents from Arica to Scandinavia and Japan to Canada. This practice of interest partnership began during the Bangbandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman regime after the emergence of Bangladesh in the early 1970s. It is a growing reality of the country’s economy and public life.

Do you have any comments on the US Elections and its impact on Bangladesh?

Anisur Rahman: Dr Muhammad Yunus is a friend to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Through this high-profile US couple, he has privileged contacts to the Democrat’s corridors. Dr Yunus’s organizations have donated between 125,000 and 300,000 USD to the Clinton Foundation ahead of the 2016 elections. Donald Trump as well as his Republican bloc are aware of this. There were Wikileaks findings exposing the then US foreign minister Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful effort to influence Bangladesh authority to favour her friend Yunus. These facts are now public at home and abroad. There are reasons to argue that through political change in Washington, the US foreign policy will not affect a bilateral relation with a particular country. On the other hand, we cannot dismiss the possible consequence of the stories featuring Yunus’ sweet deal with Democratic bloc. We must not forget that the Yunus led interim regime is unconstitutional. One may mark the difference between the Biden and the Trump administration in the approach towards the Yunus regime. Let’s wait a few weeks.

Does the report to Lammy highlight something we already didn’t know?

Anisur Rahman: All the things highlighted in the report were known to us. But it is an official recognition from a parliament in a country like United Kingdom which is a top ranking country for upholding democratic values. It is to be noted that the All Party Parliamentary Group–APPG chairman Tory MP Andrew Rosindell said:

This report will be a step in our efforts to raise awareness of issues affecting important Commonwealth partners. The findings will be shared with the government, charities, and other stakeholders involved with Bangladesh and the Commonwealth. It is hoped that these issues are heard within Westminster and Whitehall, and this report helps to inform parliamentarians and decision makers.

This was a warning to the interim regime.  

What can be its implications?

 Anisur Rahman: The regime will be under pressure to uphold the democratic process, to ensure equal democratic access to all democratic political stakeholders for instance the Awami League-led 14 party coalition, the BNP-led alliances. The elements in this military-jongi friendship regime will sooner or later become more careful in collaborating with extremists and be bound to hold a democratic election at the earliest possible.

Let me mention that this report was made in November 2024. Following it, the Swedish Parliament had a debate on the situation in Bangladesh. 28 ambassadors from EU countries to Bangladesh in a meeting with Muhammad Yunus stressed the need of ensuring of human rights, justice and holding  possible earliest election.

Recently, an Indian delegation also visited Bangladesh and highlighted the issues of atrocities against minorities. What is your opinion on this?

Anisur Rahman: The Bangladesh authorities did not appreciate the concern raised by the Indian delegation led by the foreign secretary. Bangladesh categorically denied the issue as saying it’s an internal issue of Bangladesh. It is confusing to us why different voices in the interim cabinet like Asif  Nazrul, Hizbuti figure Mahfuz Alam are producing words provoking India. The interim administration could not take to improve its relationship with India. The approach taken by different groups in Dhaka towards the Indian delegation was not friendly.

 How do you see the India-Bangladesh relationship changing?

Anisur Rahman: We are witnessing a provocative reaction even from the Indian side. Let me mention Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement on X-handle dated the 16th of December 2024:

Today, on Vijay Diwas, we honour the courage and sacrifices of the brave soldiers who contributed to India’s historic victory in 1971. Their selfless dedication and unwavering resolve safeguarded our nation and brought glory to us. This day is a tribute to their extraordinary valour and their unshakable spirit. Their sacrifices will forever inspire generations and remain deeply embedded in our nation’s history.

Let me remind you that Bangladesh has clear reasons to be grateful to India and her people for their support and solidarity during the War of Liberation of Bangladesh in 1971. It was a War of Liberation of Bangladesh. It was not a war between India and Pakistan. The war began on the 26th of March following the attack by the Pakistani occupying army on the 25th March and thereafter Bangbandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s declation of Independence of Bangladesh dated the 26th March 1971. Bangladesh continued that war till December. Indian forces joined the Bangladesh resistance movement called Muktibahini (Forces of Liberation) in the war against the occupying Pakistani army on the 3rd of December 1971. There is no way to deny India’s support and contribution to Bangladesh in 1971. However, it does not mean Indian politicians today do have reasons to claim the victory the way how Prime Minister Narenra Modi did. Narendra Modi’s statement is unacceptable.

It seems both sides are engaged in a tongue war. It is not a good sign. Bangladesh’s unconstitutional interim regime boss, Dr Muhammad Yunus, began this megaphone diplomacy in August. To avoid any unexpected consequence between these two neighbours in South Asia, it is high time to launch a third party diplomatic initiave. Otherwise, trouble could be in the making. I want to inform you, that India had also contributed to intensify anti-India sentiment among the people in Bangladesh. It is difficult for them to appreciate the Indian stand when the Indian authorities cannot stop the killing on its borders. India did not sign the much expected Teesta River deal.  Instead the country signed many imbalanced treaties with Bangladesh. This contributed to the Sheikh Hasina regime becoming unpopular.  

On the other hand, India does have reasons to be unhappy about the recent acquital of the criminals in the 10-truck arms case in Bangladesh.

If the situation continues, how could it affect South Asia and the world?

Anisur Rahman: If the situation continues, Bangladesh will only be the first victim. People on both sides will suffer. Other South Asian nations will also be affected for instance Nepal, Bhutan and China. Bilateral relations do not mean only diplomatic and government to government relation. It is people to people relation in regards to tourism, export, import, culture, education, energy, medicare, family bondage, religion, water share, security, communication and so. Unrest in Myanmar is also a concern. The emergence of the Arakan Army in Myanmar is notable. It is an extra headache to both Bangladesh and Myanmar. Being a major neighbour, India does have a big responsibility to find a solution through dialogue instead of looking for immature and provocative approaches.

 Do you see such situations moving beyond Bangladesh? Like a ripple effect?                       

Anisur Rahman: The signal is not clear yet. If we look back at the developments in Afghanistan in the last decades, we may imagine how the situation could develop. It depends on this handicapped Yunus regime. The regime still has time to find a way towards democratic transition. It requires domestic political consensus among all political stakeholders and possibly early election. Consensus does not mean only with nationalists and Islamist groups loyal to the Yunus regime. These nationalists and Islamist groups are visibly anti-Indian. That is why the Yunus-regime must have consensus also with the secular-liberal stakeholders. That could be a way out for the Yunus administration to improve relations with India. If Dr Yunus and his allies truly feel that need. It can be a safeguard for the time being and thus South Asia can avoid any possible negative consequences from the growing unrest.