Blinken's Cacophony and Another Clarion Call For Disrupting World Order.

M A Hossain, 

During a public forum at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken remarked, "If you are not at the table in the international system, you're going to be on the menu." He also emphasized, "It is important for us to re-engage multilaterally, and we have done that."  Almost two decades ago, the world grappled with similar rhetoric from the then-President, George W. Bush: "Every nation in every region now has a decision to make—either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." The aftermath of Bush's declaration witnessed a systematic destabilization by the West. The US-backed 'War on Terror' failed to bring peace and destabilized previously peaceful countries. In the name of the 'war on terror', the US military-industrial complex and technology giants have made huge profits through contracts with the US military and other government agencies.  Michael Moore's documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," uncovers the heartbreaking truths behind such taunts from the United States.

 Blinken's rhetoric coincides with a period where Biden's global influence is dimming. Notably, Biden's Ukraine venture turned into a complete mess. The Hamas-Israel conflict somewhat serves as a distraction from the Ukraine debacle. However, global leaders are increasingly skeptical of the Biden administration's reliance. The attempt to open a new front in Yemen appears to mask their struggles in Israel. Biden's failure to exert control over ally Netanyahu and navigate relations with Arab nations has contributed to the skepticism. Additionally, Global South nations are becoming hesitant regarding US demands, highlighting the missteps of the Biden administration in shaping global geopolitics.

The "War on Terror," declared by President George W. Bush in 2001, exacerbated divisions globally. This conflict exposed a crusade mentality with Islamophobia and xenophobia, aligning with Samuel P. Huntington's concept in "Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order." The transformation of the war from counterterrorism to counterinsurgency and followed by nation-building missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya highlighted the inconsistencies of the West. When President Biden assumed his office, he said" the mission in Afghanistan was never supposed to be for nation-building". The statement clearly exposed his tendency to bring global conflicts, destabilizing regions and excluding rivals from the negotiation table.

Indeed, the historical record shows instances where Western leaders, including the false claims about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, demonstrated a pattern of deception. Similarly, the portrayal of the war in Afghanistan as successful contradicted the reality of the situation.

Blinken's rhetoric serves to highlight that the expenditure in US-led wars often functions as a means to channel money out of the tax bases of Western nations and their allies, ultimately benefiting defense contractors. This echoes President Dwight D. Eisenhower's caution about the influence of the military-industrial complex, emphasizing how the United States is influenced by its whims. The war on terror, with its questionable outcomes and financial implications, aligns with Eisenhower's concern about the complex's impact on the nation.

On the other hand, China, an economic superpower, has adopted the policy to promote multi-alignment among countries, described as 'balance diplomacy' and 'positive balancing.' Chinese foreign policies are designed in a way that appeals to countries in the Global South that feel increasingly alienated from the US-led rules-based international order. After the Saudi-Iran breakthrough, Beijing began to position itself as an impartial and trustworthy partner. China does not influence or interfere in other countries' domestic affairs and refrains from 'war-opportune economic' gains. However, since President George W. Bush launched the war on terror in September 2001, the top five US defense industry companies—Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics—have earned $2.2 trillion from Afghanistan alone. 

Blinken's statement is considered a political misadventure for the Biden administration, which reflects a broader trend of declining US influence in today's multipolar world. Economically and militarily, the Global South is emerging as a leading power, and it is challenging the traditional hegemony of the West, particularly the United States. Moreover, Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi said in Munich Conference, " The world's second-largest economy cannot be sliced out of world trade."

The struggle that the United States has faced to garner support for the 'Yemen campaign' illustrates the diminishing ability of allies to rally. The lack of nations willing to engage in a war for US interests signals a shift in global dynamics. Even longstanding allies, such as Israel, appear less inclined to align with US requirements. This growing isolation has led to the US being exposed to accusations of engaging in dirty politics, contributing to its status as a pariah nation on the international stage.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at :

1. Modern Diplomacy, EU: 21 Feb'24

2. Policy Watcher: 20 Feb'24

3. Daily Times, Pak : 21 Feb'24

4. South Asia Monitor, India : 22 Feb'24

5. VT Foreign Policy, USA : 01 Mar'24

6. The Catch Line, Pak : 27 Feb'24

Trump's Next Presidency Promises a Significant Shift From The Past.

M A Hossain,

According to all recent polls, Donald Trump is projected to win by a landslide against Joe Biden or any of the Democratic Party candidates. Over the past four years, Biden has created a series of mess-ups both in the United States and worldwide due to his disastrous diplomacy—from Afghanistan to Ukraine and now Gaza. Moreover, Joe Biden has also been attempting to ignite another proxy war in Taiwan, thus pushing America into the rivalry against two powerful nations: Russia and China.

Meanwhile, political pundits in most nations worldwide have begun evaluating the potential consequences of Trump’s presidency or the fate of Biden’s decisions, including the war in Ukraine. Although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during the Munich Security Conference, vowed to continue the war indefinitely and sought financial and military assistance from the United States and European nations, everything may dramatically change after November 5, 2024 this year. Donald Trump is not in favor of giving billions of dollars to Ukraine to continue its war against Russia. Trump may also make almost similar decisions regarding Israel’s ongoing war against Gaza. Many analysts suggest that Trump’s next presidency might not be good news for Hamas or its patrons, including Qatar, as he may initiate some extremely tough measures in these cases.

Donald Trump’s next presidency may bring surprises to many nations worldwide, especially Iran, Ukraine, and Palestine. While he might succeed in pressuring Zelensky into reaching a peace deal with Russia, it is still too early to predict if Zelensky will be able to do so. He would face tremendous pressure from his generals and the top brass of the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalions. Unless he convinces them, it would not be surprising if Volodymyr Zelensky is ousted from power and forced to flee Ukraine. In that case, Ukraine may enter the second phase of war against Russia under the command of its military generals and the Azov Battalions. This could indeed become a real Herculean task for Trump. Similarly, Trump’s hardline approach towards Palestinians and any punitive measures against Hamas and Qatar may generate further complications once pro-Iran forces in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and other Middle Eastern nations begin direct war against Israel.

As Donald Trump’s victory on November 5,2024 is becoming almost imminent, there is debate on his public perception – which at least until now says – he is arrogant, slanderous, hot-headed and reckless. He also has been cruel - to a certain degree - to illegal immigrants, particularly Muslims. Most importantly, Donald Trump during the previous term had aborted the globalist formula and restricted the US from playing the role of the world cop – America First is his mantra. Trump had mainly focused on America’s domestic issues while he initiated construction of the wall to stop migrant floodgates from South American and other nations. This particular decision had received huge criticism from the Democrats and their loyal media. As a result, when Biden won the election in 2020, he almost opened the borders thus enabling hundreds and thousands of illegal migrants to enter the United States, which now has turned into one of the major headaches for America and Americans.

With all of these track records, one may ask, shall Donald Trump show even more aggressive attitude once he sits in the Oval Office?

According to my own assessment, during the past few years of his facing continuous assault from Biden, US establishment and intelligence agency's cruel persecution, possibly Trump now realizes, the key issues that he needs to take care are very much within his own country, while none of the foreign nations or races pose threat to America - neither China, nor Russia or even Muslims.

Donald Trump possibly now also understands, unless American politicians, particularly Washington swamps are stopped for good, the country shall ultimately push towards a civil war, where 450 million weapons would come out of households thus turning the US into far-worse chaotic than Libya or Iraq.

For the post-November 5, 2024 new  POTUS, the priority should be to address crises, problems, and potential threats within their own country rather than assuming the role of a global cop. Congress President Joe Biden has extended armed conflicts worldwide, aligning with a faction of warmongers whose economic interests converge with him, and it costs lives and diminishes respect for American society. President Biden initiated controversial agendas beginning with Ukraine and concluding with Yemen, facing complete debacles everywhere and opening new war fronts as a fig leaf to conceal his failures.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties in America are suffering from a leadership vacuum. Both parties face the oldest leadership in American history. This is very harmful in the American political context. As a number one superpower, the leader must have strong physical and mental appearance. Moreover, there is a wide gap in public opinion and popularity between Donald Trump and his closest rival, Nikki Haley, in the Republican Party. Similarly, there is no immediate successor to Joe Biden in Congress.

The national intelligence agencies have exhibited unprecedented political bias in American history under the last two presidents. This biased state of affairs in organizations has led to a gradual decline in America's influence worldwide. The nation is slipping away from its once-held position as the number one superpower. When state institutions display favoritism towards a political party, the governance system of that country tends to weaken, ultimately leading to collapse. Both Trump and Biden have employed similar tactics to target each other, which exhibited the erosion of democratic morality in the American political landscape.

In the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, Trump has pledged to resolve the conflict within 24 hours and would encourage Zelensky to implement the US-proposed deal. Trump's foreign policy stance is clear that he would prioritize from a globalist to a nationalist approach. Conversely, Biden is accused of destabilizing the Balkans and Europe, hindering their path to prosperity. This is considered one of Donald Trump's significant manifesto – maintaining peace globally. Indeed, Donald Trump stands out as the only president who actively avoided seeking war in any region. His commitment to maintaining peace and reluctance to engage in conflicts set him apart from his predecessors, making him a unique figure in recent political history. Trump aims to sustain this approach, although he has shown favoritism towards Israel in the past, and this is expected to continue. He plans to exert pressure on Iran, keeping its proxy forces occupied through third parties. It wouldn't be surprising if Trump opts for a more robust stance against Iran.

Trump's presidency has been successful in certain areas, as evidenced by the initiatives he set in motion, many of which the Biden administration has continued without minimal alterations. Notably, Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, and the Biden administration, despite promises, has made no progress on that deal. The new trade war strategy of Trump against China, has persisted under the Biden administration. Trump's one-sided policy for favoring Israel remains unchanged during Biden's tenure.  And the Biden administration could not bring any paradigm shift towards peace talks. Additionally, Trump's strict stance on illegal immigrants and political asylum seekers is a focal point in his election campaign.

M A Hossain, a political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh.  He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at :

1. Indian Defence Review, 20 Feb'24

2. Weekly Blitz, BD: 16 Feb'24

3. The Eastern Herald, India : 16 Feb'24

4. VT Foreign Policy, USA : 01Mar'24

 

 

Bangladesh's resilience against American pressure tactics. .

M A Hossain, 

In recent years, Bangladesh has found itself in the crosshairs of American political maneuvering, as Washington employs various tactics to assert its influence over the South Asian nation. From visa restrictions to sanctions, the United States has attempted to strong-arm Bangladesh into compliance, seemingly oblivious to the historical context and the resilient spirit of its people. Such actions are result of continuous attempts and lobbying efforts of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its ally Muhammad Yunus.

The roots of this strained relationship trace back to Bangladesh’s struggle for independence in 1971, when then-President Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, attempted to thwart the nation’s bid for independence and sovereignty. Despite their efforts, Bangladesh emerged triumphant, shaking off the shackles of oppression and asserting its rightful place on the world stage.

However, the scars of that tumultuous period still linger, as evidenced by Washington’s imposition of sanctions on Bangladesh in 1974. Allegations of jute exports to Cuba served as a pretext for punitive measures, leading to a devastating famine that claimed the lives of thousands. The culpability of Nixon and Kissinger in this tragedy cannot be overstated, as their vindictive actions resulted in untold suffering for the Bengali people.

In this case, they are missing two significant points. Firstly, back in 1971, during the war of independence of Bangladesh, then US President Richard Nixon – who had later been proved as a man of highest disgust and his Secretary of State Heinz Alfred Kissinger aka Henry Kissinger made frantic bids in sabotaging aspiration of liberation from the clutches of Islamabad. In the end, attempts of Nixon-Kissinger was bogged-down in the deep waters of Bay of Bengal and Bangladesh emerged as an independent and sovereign nation. Secondly, in 1974, Washington imposed sanctions of Bangladesh by bringing allegations of exporting jute to Cuba. This was America’s first sanctions on a newly-born country, which was responsible for 1974 famine. According to government’s estimation, over 27,000 people dies of this famine while unofficial sources put the figure at 1.5 million. This famine is considered one of the worst in 20th century. Meaning, Nixon and Kissinger were mainly responsible for the death of such a large number of people. In other words – by imposing sanctions on Bangladesh, American policymakers had committed crime against humanity. According to many analysts, through this sanctions, Nixon and Kissinger took revenge on Bengali people for not bowing-down to notorious desire of Washington and its attempts of foiling Bangladesh’s war of independence.

Fast forward to the present day, and Bangladesh once again finds itself in the crosshairs of American political machinations. The Biden administration, led by President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, continues to exert pressure on Dhaka, seeking to undermine the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.

Behind the facade of promoting democracy, Washington’s true intentions become clear: to destabilize Bangladesh and install a regime more amenable to its interests. This nefarious agenda is aided by Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), accused of harboring connections with extremist elements, thereby posing a grave threat to the nation’s sovereignty and security.

It is indeed lamentable that some political leaders would align themselves with external forces bent on destabilizing their own country. The BNP’s collusion with Washington’s agenda undermines the democratic principles upon which Bangladesh was founded and jeopardizes the well-being of its citizens.

Moreover, the hypocrisy of American foreign policy is glaringly apparent when contrasted with its treatment of Pakistan. While Washington turns a blind eye to Pakistan’s descent into authoritarianism, it singles out Bangladesh for scrutiny under the guise of promoting democracy. This double standard exposes the true nature of American hegemony, which seeks to exploit weaker nations for its own gain.

In the face of such pressure tactics, Bangladesh must stand firm in defense of its sovereignty and democratic principles. The resilience and determination that fueled the nation’s struggle for independence in 1971 must guide its response to contemporary challenges, ensuring that Bangladesh remains a beacon of democracy and stability in a tumultuous world.

Ultimately, Bangladesh should not fear America’s scarecrow tactics, for the spirit of its people cannot be broken by external pressures. By remaining steadfast in the face of adversity, Bangladesh will continue to chart its own course, free from the interference of foreign powers bent on manipulation and control.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com 

This article published at :

1. The Daily Observer, BD: 15 Feb 24

2. Weekly Blitz, BD:11 Feb 24

3. The Asian Age, BD: 16 Feb'24

4. The CatchLine, Pak: 18 Feb'24

Pakistan Under the Grab of Pseudo Military Rule.

M A Hossain, 

Following the ousting of Prime Minister Imran Khan's government, a discernible anticipation prevailed among the politically astute regarding the conduct of elections in Pakistan. Even though, the constitutionally caretaker government conducted the election, but, it was evident that it failed to ensure a "level playing fields" for all parties. Former Prime Minister Imran's imprisonment followed by a crackdown on PTI leaders and workers resulted in a tense atmosphere in the election. 

The Election Commission of Pakistan strongly complained that they didn't do justice to them. PTI supporters found themselves compelled to enter the polls as 'independent candidates,' devoid of the party's familiar symbols, and encountered obstacles during campaigning. When Khan put in jail and made him ineligible to contest due to multiple convictions, there was a doubt that PTI's popularity and increased sympathy might not be exhibited at the ballot box. Consequently, the expectation was that the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), led by three-time Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, would ascend to power, as the most confidante of the military. 

Despite the military backing, the darling of General's realization did not materialize in the Pakistani elections. After facing numerous challenges, Imran's supporters exhibited remarkable unity and unwavering determination, ultimately securing victory. Although not officially recognized as a party, their confidence in Imran Khan's leadership is undeniable, at least no single party has attained an outright majority.

While Imran's supporters secured the majority of seats, Nawaz Sharif, now aligned with the military, the country's influential and enduring power broker, swiftly moved to initiate a government formation. Discussions have commenced with key figures from the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) led by Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, who finished third in the polls. Despite the coalition agreement between these two parties, demonstrating support from winners of other parties is imperative to establish their majority. Consequently, efforts may be made to attract successful independents from outside the PTI fold.

Imran's party, despite being the single largest, faces obstacles in staking a claim due to the intricacies of the 'post-poll alliance,' with preference given to Nawaz Sharif's party. The final steps in Pakistan's political landscape will now be orchestrated by the military establishment. Despite the numerical disparity in seats, intervention from Rawalpindi is expected to facilitate the formation of a new alliance under Nawaz Sharif, projecting an appearance of democratic due process. This development further consolidates military control over the government, with the incumbent Prime Minister realizing that the coalition's longevity is contingent on General Munir's discretion.

Pakistan confronts a growing security challenge along its borders. Despite historical affiliations with the Afghan Taliban, Islamabad's relations with Kabul have strained due to cross-border terrorist incidents and the expulsion of numerous Afghan refugees, some of whom had resided in Pakistan for extended periods. Additionally, recent exchanges between Pakistan and Iran involve accusations regarding alleged militant bases on each other's territory. Furthermore, Islamabad has accused New Delhi of conducting an assassination campaign within its borders, which escalates tensions with its longstanding rival.

The evident reality is that the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is poised to escalate its attacks in the aftermath of the elections, aiming to undermine the fragile coalition government. Anticipations suggest that in the coming spring, the TTP will significantly intensify its Pakistan Security Forces campaign, applying pressure on the new government to engage in negotiations and reach an agreement with the militant group.

Despite failing to secure a government formation, the supporters of Imran Khan are lauded for their resilient stance in an election perceived as one-sided against the influence of the powerful military. The West, including the previously criticized United States, now questions the election's integrity and calls for investigations into alleged interference. The motives behind such actions are unclear, raising skepticism about the authenticity of their 'value-based' stance. Changes in positions are evident, with varied perspectives across different countries.

Looking ahead, the political landscape of Pakistan is uncertain, influenced by Western actions and potential shifts in the military's stance. Amidst this, there are concerns that continuous political turmoil and militant attacks may pose a greater threat to the country's economy as well as its stability. Definitely, these will affect not only foreign lenders, investors, and commercial partners but also diminish public trust regardless of the political party in power.

This article published at :

1. Weekly Blitz, BD: 13 Feb24

2. Indian Defence Review: 14 Feb24

3. Good morning Kashmir: 14 Feb 24

4. Indian Defence News: 14 Feb 24

5. The Highland Post, Meghalaya: 17Feb24

Iran Takes a Step Closer to the Middle East Venture.

M. A. Hossain,

The conflict between Israel and Hamas has extended into the broader Middle East, escalating the likelihood of a confrontation between the regional power - Iran's 'Axis of Resistance' and the global power - the USA and its allies. Israel's continuous unlawful bombardment of Gaza results in new estimates of tens of thousands of Palestinian casualties every day. The Iranian-backed Shiite Quds Force has engaged in highly dangerous strikes with Israel and its patron, the US, spanning from the Red Sea to Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. This situation is contributing to the evolving political discourse surrounding the right of Palestinians to live peacefully.

Now, following the latest militia attack on Tower 22, the US military outpost in Jordan, it is thrusting President Biden into the greatest crisis of his presidency. This is not what the president or his top aides expected or hoped for. Before this, the US and Iran had avoided directly confronting each other. The US has attacked Iranian proxy forces in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, while Iran-backed militias have targeted the US and its allies in Iraq and Syria. Tehran has also struck what it dubbed as anti-Iran groups in Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan. Since the beginning of the Gaza war, it was the first time U.S. troops were killed by enemy attacks in the Middle East, increasing significant pressure on Biden and risking a new war in an election year.

The historical rivalry between Iran and the US traces back to political events, notably the 1953 CIA-backed coup that removed Iran's Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Subsequently, the relations got more strain during the post-1979 Iranian revolution and the US Embassy hostage crisis. Ongoing geopolitical challenges, like nuclear programs and regional influence, has also stoked the flare. 

Iran has been consistently opposing the presence of U.S. forces in the Middle East. In retaliation, the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps(IRGC) started building an extensive network of anti-Western and anti-Israel militias in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen over several decades. Iran provided training and funding these Shiite militia groups, and they are more accountable to the authorities of the IRGC in Tehran than to their respective governments.

The Hamas attack against Israel on October 7th, 2023, was the first step to unfold the Shia domination maneuver in the Middle East. Then came Hezbollah's endeavor to displace 70,000 Israelis with its attack on northern Israel, followed by tens of dozens of IRGC-sponsored militia strikes on U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria, and the Houthi's attacks against commercial and military shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.

In Iraq, Tehran wields significant influence on various Shiite militias closely tied to the IRGC. These include Kataib Hezbollah, Harkat al Najuba, Kataib Sayyid al Shuhada, and recently the Islamic Resistance in Iraq. Iraq is also home to IRGC-funded Badar Organization, as well as Asaib Ahl al Haq. The US has deployed some 2500 troops at various bases in Iraq. In Syria, Iran has a direct presence with the Quds Force, an elite unit of the IRGC. The forces deployed after the 2011 uprising to support the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. Syria also hosts the Shiite militia groups named Zainabiyoun and Fatemiyoun Brigades. The US has 800 forces in Syria as part of a mission to defeat ISIS.

In Jordan, about 3000 U.S. troops are stationed and facilitate strategic tactical advantages like intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance missions for Syria and Iraq. Lebanon is home to the most powerful Shiite militia force, Hezbollah. Hezbollah has war experience from the Iraq-Iran war. Yemen is mostly controlled by the Shiite militia Houthi. Hamas in Gaza is a Sunni militia group backed by Shia Iran. 80% of its budget comes from Iran. On the other hand, the Gulf states are also home to US troops. The US has 13,500 troops in Kuwait, 10,000 US Force in Qatar, more than 2700 troops in Saudi Arabia, and 3500 US personnel in the UAE. Turkey has 1465 US troops at Incirlik air base, and Bahrain hosts the Navy's fifth Fleet. After Hamas's incursion into Israel, Biden strengthened the US presence in the region, positioning additional air defense forces, two Aircraft carrier strike groups, and some 900 additional troops as a deterring posture.

Iran's long-cherished strategic aim is to drive U.S. troops out from the Middle East, ultimately paving the way for Iran's dominance in the region. Iran wants to play a decisive geopolitical and geostrategic role in the Middle East's perspective. On the other hand, Biden is under tremendous pressure to hit back at Tehran. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump criticized Biden for not responding to previous attacks and appeasement gestures through nuclear talks, recent prisoner swaps, and unfreezing Iran's funds. The Biden administration has made a political blunder in offering unconditional support to Israel just after the Hamas raid. Again, Biden would be caught in another political blunder by directly retaliating against Iran. It has been a long-cherished desire by Netanyahu and his extremist cronies to drag the USA into a war against Iran and across the Middle East.

The US can't ignore the ICJ ruling that Israel must stop genocidal activities in Gaza. Moreover, Palestine and Iran issues have risked the US allies to give the USA carte blanche, especially France, Germany, Italy, and Gulf states. To counter the asymmetric attrition of the war of Iran and its proxy forces, the US needs a formidable alignment among its allies. Again, Israel's atrocities may justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine and furthermore assist anti-democratic geopolitics on the rise. It would be wise for the Pentagon to address the root causes of Palestine and put forward the two-state solution to the incumbent US legislative machinery. 

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh.  He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at : 

1. Modern Diplomacy, EU: 01 Feb 24

2. The New Nation, BD: 02 Feb 24

3. Daily Times, Pakistan: 02 Feb 24

4. Eurasia Review, USA,01Feb24

5. The Asian Age, BD: 03 Feb 24

6. The Highland Post, shillong: 03Feb'24

7. The Pakistan Today, Pak : 09Feb'24

The Hindutva, Ram Mandir, And Its Contemporary Dynamics In India.

M A Hossain,

"Hindutva" is not only a mere religious ideology but also a political extremism ingrained in the charter of responsibilities for the revivalist Hindu community. Its historical vision of a 'United Bharat' bears a striking resemblance to the Zionist concept of 'The Greater Israel.' The adoption of Hindutva draws inspiration from the militant ethos of Mussolini's Fascism and Hitler's Nazism. Currently, the governance under the Hindutva-inspired BJP mirrors the approach of an exclusively Hindu nationalist state, akin to the trajectory of Jewish Israel. India, originally founded as a secular state, is undergoing a transformation into an extreme Hindu nationalist state entity harboring aspirations of expansionism rooted in their religious scripture, the 'Puran.'

This imperialistic maneuver mirrors historical precedents set by Italian Fascists and German Nazis, echoing the present-day trajectory of Jewish Israel. It is evident that such an imperialistic hegemony leads to chaos and conflict, as seen in World War II and the ongoing Palestine-Israel conflict. There is a tangible concern that the BJP's Hindutva movement may instigate a new era of chaos and confrontation in the South Asian region.

The Hindutva ideology is not embraced by the majority of Hindus but has gained popularity in India under Narendra Modi's leadership. The intellectual legacy advocated by early Hindu reformists, Ram Mohan Roy (born in 1772), was the pioneer of today's Hindu extremists. In 1875, Hindu guru Swami Dayananda Saraswati established the 'Arya Samaj,' a movement aimed at reviving Hindu traditions. Dayananda was a staunch critic of various faiths, including the Abrahamic religions. He introduced the concept of converting Hinduism, named 'Shuddhi' or purification, and 'Swaraj' advocating for a self-ruled Hindu state in opposition to British colonial rule.

Although Dayananda passed away in 1883, the 'Arya Samaj' continued to take a more active role with the establishment of the "Hindu Sabha" and "Hindu Mahasabha" in 1915. The term 'Hindutva' was stamped by V.D. Savarkar in 1923, marking a pivotal moment in the ideological landscape. Political activist Keshav Baliram Hedgewar founded the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in 1925, contributing significantly to the grassroots expansion of the Hindutva ideology across the Indian subcontinent.

The RSS's direct involvement in politics came after Indian Independence. In 1948, the organization faced a ban following the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by one of its members, Nathuram Godse. Subsequently, in 1951, the RSS collaborated with the Hindu Mahasabha to establish the Bharatiya Jana Sangha political party- the precursor to the formation of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Presently, the RSS boasts 65 affiliated organizations and an additional 100 subsidiary groups, collectively recognized as the "Sangh Parivar" or the Sangh family.

In 1980, the BJP was founded as a distinct political entity. Initially securing only two seats in the 1984 general election, its political landscape dramatically shifted in the subsequent 1991 election, where it garnered a notable 120 seats. This significant rise was notably influenced by two pivotal movements, namely the "Ram Birthplace Movement" and the "Rath Journey," orchestrated by the Bishwa Hindu Parishad from 1983.

Narendra Modi's ascent to power with the BJP in 2014 further solidified the party's standing, gaining even more popularity in the 2018 elections. A significant turning point brought about by the extremist Hindutva ideology in India's secular politics transpired with the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992. The seeds for this act were sown in 1949 when the Hindu Mahasabha secretly placed a Krishna idol inside the mosque in the hours of darkness. BJP leader Lal Krishna Advani portrayed the Babri Masjid as a symbol of defeat by the Muslims and advocated the construction of the Ram Mandir on its site as a collective atonement for all Hindus' sins.

The Hindutva movement was influenced by Italian Fascism and the German Nazi movement. Its initial pioneers drew profound inspiration from figures like Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. The paramount impact on Hindutva leaders emanated from the establishment of militant societies and the inception of fervently aggressive fascist youth-oriented organizations. In the year 1931, BS Munje, the mentor of Hedgewar, undertook a visit to Italy where he encountered Benito Mussolini. Subsequently, commencing in 1938, the Nazi forces in Germany emerged as a wellspring of inspiration for the Hindu Mahasabhas. The adherents of Hindutva assimilated the German Nazi methodology employed against the Jews, adapting and applying it to the context within Hindustan. The effectiveness of armed organizations was a common thread in the ascent of Fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany. The deployment of the 'Black Shirt' forces in Italy and the 'Brown Shirt' forces in Germany proved instrumental in propelling Mussolini and Hitler to power. Their aggressive and tumultuous activities significantly shaped the political landscape of that time. The 'Saffron' forces within Hindutva organizations have assumed a parallel role, persisting in their unwavering activities following the historical Black Shirt and Brown Shirt forces.

The Nazi ascent to power in 1933, but SA(Sturmabteilungen) forces persisted in assaulting the opposition. Interestingly, these atrocities often garnered support and endorsement from the common Germans. Cruelty, harassment, beatings, killings, looting, and the destruction of residences and offices became routine activities against political adversaries. Presently, India witnesses a strikingly similar strategy and approach, evident in numerous incidents of violence under the guise of cow vigilance, NRC, or CAA implementation – all representing distinct forms of Nazism. The propaganda employed by the Hindutva movement bears a resemblance to that of the Nazis. Modi initiated strategically designed campaigns to heighten the perception of insecurity among Hindus, employing recurrent references to minority Muslims as a purported threat to the majority Hindus. This portrayal, framing Hindus as local and Muslims as 'external aggressors,' echoes the divisive strategy employed by Hitler, who singled out Jews as the exclusive target of animosity.

The consolidation of control by the BJP and RSS across India parallels the modus operandi employed by Hitler's Nazi Party. A BJP reminiscent of the Nazi party ascended to power through democratic elections. Subsequently, they methodically infused extremist ideology into the governmental apparatus. Analogously, the BJP is executing the Hindutva agenda within cultural and educational spheres. The resounding electoral victory of the BJP and Modi in 2019, surpassing their 2014 mandate, serves as tangible evidence of this ideological implementation. Notably, both Fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany espoused the concept of expansionism. Similarly, this ambition finds a legacy in the Hindutva's aspiration for a "United Bharat."

The motives of the Hindutva-inspired BJP exhibit heightened aggression towards India's minorities, particularly Muslims. The escalating radicalism and extremism within Hindutva movements foreshadow a surge in hostilities. The dissemination of hate-driven content against Muslims by the media is anticipated to intensify when the alignment of the judiciary and administration with the Hindutva movement becomes visible. The future portends an increase in attacks on Muslims orchestrated by armed organizations affiliated with the Hindutva movement.

Recently, heightened tensions resembling the Babri Masjid demolition have been exacerbated by the leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha. They have explicitly threatened to install an idol of Krishna within the Shahi Eidgah Mosque in Mathura. It was a conspiracy of the Hindu Mahasabha who surreptitiously placed the Krishna idol within the confines of the Babri Masjid in the hours of darkness in 1949. This act paved the destructive trajectory towards the mosque's eventual demolition. Notably, the audacious act undertaken clandestinely in 1949 is now threatening to be carried out overtly in 2021. This development holds profound significance, portending a challenging political crisis on the horizon for South Asia.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

The article published at :

1. Daily Times, Pakistan :24 Jan 24

2. The Catch Line, Pakistan : 25 Jan 24

Is The Political West Pushing Towards A Sunni-Shiite War?

 M A Hossain,

The so-called mainstream media may continue to remain silent or parrot the propaganda of Iranian backed Hamas centering the October 7 raid. While in reality it is a well-established fact that terror-patron Iran was behind the ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’ where Hamas and other Palestinian Jihadist groups, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and civilians in Gaza had participated. It is also a proven fact that for years the ruler of Qatar, a Sunni nation, has provided hundreds of millions of dollars towards empowering Hamas while Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani has been playing the role of the key-patron of Hamas and even granting shelter to kingpins of this Jihadist outfit in Doha. By harboring Hamas kingpins, Al Thani might have thought – he had become the godfather of the Middle East. But he was grossly wrong. Al Thani did not realize, with his cash, he was actually empowering a monster that is totally loyal to Iran – a Shiite nation that would cause harm to any of the Sunni nations in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and also Qatar. 

Iran’s recent missile attack in Pakistan’s Balochistan province, although protected by Tehran’s actions against the terrorist base, in reality has a different angle. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his cronies consider Sunni Muslims as blood-enemies, while they do not even consider Sunnis as Muslims. Tehran has a broad-based blueprint of ultimately waging war against each and every Sunni nation. Pakistan is just one of Tehran’s vicious targets. As the Israel-Hamas conflict turns into a catastrophe for Gaza residents, just after three months of October 7, Iran has revealed its intention of beginning a Sunni-Shia war across the Middle East and beyond.

Initially, Iranian proxy Shia forces targeted various Western establishments. However, on January 16, Tehran launched air attacks in Pakistan while Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia are in a row. The attacks appear premeditated, provoking warfare by Shiite Iran. The unfolding battle scenario suggests the West, particularly the Biden administration, is orchestrating a Shia-Sunni conflict in the Middle East. In a few weeks, the cloud may clear, revealing another bloody conflict between Shia and Sunni nations.

Political pundits predict that Asia will be a pivotal player in shaping the new world order. With 60 percent of the world’s population, Asia, particularly the Middle East, boasts the richest reserves of explored mineral resources. While the Western economy faces challenges, the Asian economy is collectively emerging as an economic superpower. Militarily, Asia surpasses other continents, including those with nuclear capabilities. In this context, the West is strategically redirecting its political maneuvers from Africa to Asia. The Pentagon is known for its controversial policy of leveraging conflicts between Muslims. Asia is emerging as a game changer for the reorientation of the new world order.

The Iran-Pakistan conflict should not be underestimated. It would not be surprising, if escalation extends to neighboring regions and the Middle East. The timing of Iran’s diversified attacks is very crucial. Shia militias backed by Iran began saber-rattling when Hamas launched its offensive. Recent Houthi attacks in Yemen have alarmed Western nations due to Yemen’s crucial geostrategic significance in sea trade routes. Recently, the US has taken punitive measures against the Houthi rebels. The question may raise why not earlier?, especially when they were previously fighting against the Saudi-led coalition forces. Now, Iran seems compelled to expand the conflict, possibly as a diversion from the Houthi situation.

The EU and other Western nations, excluding the USA, are reluctant to engage in another war. The US, particularly its defense industrial complex, sees an opportunity to sell arms to wealthy Muslim nations through this war.  President Biden’s political image in the US is under scrutiny, when the Republican Party is appearing stronger in the upcoming presidential election. Additionally, the US economy is grappling with the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. A global war could serve as an economic uplift for the USA. If Asia becomes embroiled in conflict, the USA may gain unparalleled economic advantages over its rivals.

On the other hand, Iran has historically found leverage within the American Democratic Party. During Obama’s era, when Biden served as Vice President, Iran’s military influence significantly increased. Exploiting the Palestinian issue, Iran aimed to position itself as the most influential nation in the Middle East and a leader in the Muslim world. Recognizing a contrast between the US and its traditional allies, Iran seized the opportunity. If Iran can establish itself as a strong defender of Muslim interests, it may lead Muslim nations from the forefront. Sensitivity towards holiest places, including Al-Aqsa, unites Muslims. In this context, Iran and the USA find a convergence of their respective interests.

The West appears to be pushing Muslims into a Shia-Sunni conflict, with Iran targeting Sunni-majority states and nations closely allied with the USA. Iran’s strategy involves attacking Western allies to showcase military strength. However, this tactic would help President Biden to secure approval for military supplies to affected nations, and espionage agencies could exploit opportunities for instigation. Pakistan remains unconvinced that a brotherly nation like Iran would launch an attack against them.

Iran aspires to play a decisive political role in the Middle East, but the Islamic schism makes it a challenging task. To garner Muslim sympathy, Iran utilizes the Al-Aqsa issue as a political stunt. The West seems politically manipulating Shia, pushing for a biased Shia-Sunni conflict. There’s a belief that this conflict could potentially spread across the Middle East, shaping a textbook Shia-Sunni conflict.

M A Hossain, a political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

 This article published at : 

1. Weekly Blitz, BD: 20 Jan 24

2. The Eastern Herald, India: 20 Jan 24

3. The Daily Messenger,  BD: 21 Jan 24

4. Indian Defence Review, India: 22 Jan 24