#Bangladesh coup

[liberty1776]

Ever since1984 (after the CIA had become too well-known for setting up coups), America’s coup-machine has been the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), not the CIA. The U.S. coup that seized control over Bangladesh in August this year is a typical example: The U.S. regime wanted to place an air-force base on a particular Bangladeshi island, because that location for such a base would endanger China’s national security and weaken China’s ability to protect itself from a U.S. invasion. On 28 May 2024, the Indian Express headlined “China praises Bangladesh PM Hasina for refusing to permit foreign air base”, and reported: Money: Sound and Unsound … Continue reading →

[rightnewshindi]

BNP को उकसाया, KNF को हथियार दिए, पानी की तरह बहाया पैसा; जानें जो बाइडेन ने बांग्लादेश तख्तापलट के लिए क्या क्या किया

Bangladesh News: बांग्लादेश में शेख ह��ीना सरकार का तख्तापलट हुए 13 दिन हो चुके हैं. हसीना अब भारत के गाजियाबाद में हिंडन एयरबेस के सेफ हाउस में रह रही हैं. वहीं, बांग्लादेश में नोबेल पुरस्कार विजेता मोहम्मद यूनुस के नेतृत्व में अंतरिम सरकार का गठन हो चुका है. इस बीच हसीना सरकार के पतन को लेकर बड़ा खुलासा हुआ है. मीडिया रिपोर्ट्स में दावा किया जा रहा है कि शेख हसीना को सत्ता से बेदखल करने की…

[townpostin]

BJP Leader Files Complaint Against Salman Khurshid in Jamshedpur

Abhay Singh files complaint against Salman Khurshid over controversial statement. BJP leader Abhay Singh has lodged a complaint at Sakchi police station in Jamshedpur, seeking a case of ‘act against unity and integrity of India’ against Congress leader Salman Khurshid. JAMSHEDPUR – BJP leader Abhay Singh has lodged a complaint at Sakchi police station in Jamshedpur, seeking a BNS Section 152 case…

[beardedmrbean]

[roomselfcontain2]

Fully furnished luxury apartment decor for rent with federal light and big sofa living room furniture set kamar beautiful home organization located at Nta road port Harcourt city rivers state Nigeria

[nando161mando]

NED: "Oh, look, we carried out a coup in Bangladesh, which will be our vassal state from now on!"

[indiancolumn]

Navigating the Bangladesh Crisis- Strategic Implications for India

The crisis in Bangladesh following Hasina’s resignation poses significant challenges for India. Explore how this unrest impacts regional stability and India's strategic role. Read more by Akshat Gupta at Indian Column here:

[blogie2705]

Plot behind Bangladesh riots could be a  mix of  internal rebellion and external coup, unrest, china anlgle, Pakistan is

[summer-fruits-and-cream]

hey bangladeshi here, sheikh mujibur rahman wasn't a good person and isn't generally known as such

the struggle for independence was an important one, but please don't romanticize him

pretty depressing that sheikh mujibur rahman statues and his house (also a museum) got burned down but his daughter weaponised his legacy and these were inevitable consequences. to those who don't know him, he was the pivotal figure in the bangladeshi war of independence in 1971.

[philsmeatylegss]

I’ve seen a few people, mostly non-American, who don’t know who Henry Kissinger is or what he did. So your local history student and nerd is going to try to give a quick summary of the main atrocities he committed.

-Role in the Vietnam War: this is the first and biggest reason most people have for hating Kissinger. He unnecessarily extended and expanded the war prolonging the already frivolous conflict. He purposefully delayed negotiations. He approved large scale carpet bombings done with the use of B-52 bombs killed thousands to millions of innocent civilians. The Christmas Bombing was an intense, focused bombing that caused large civilian deaths in a short period of time. He engaged in negotiations with the North Vietnamese often without permission or knowledge from the US government. He was the National Security Advisor and overall had much knowledge about 1) how useless the war was 2) the travesties happening to both the North Vietnamese and South, as well as America’s own soldiers.

-Secret Bombing and Invasion in Cambodia: Kissinger (and Nixon) lead secret bombing campaigns in Cambodia aimed to destroy North Vietnamese trails and routes that ran through the country. Cambodia originally pursued neutrality in the war. Its citizens were not involved.

-Invasion and Bombing of Laos: Laos also held North Vietnamese routes, so Kissinger led Operation Lam Son which was a full scale invasion supplied with American air power and weapons. Not that it would matter, but this invasion did little to interrupt the trade routes. The North Vietnamese, made up of people who lived and knew the landscape of Vietnam, were able to adapt and find new routes. There was also secret bombings carried out in Laos, authorized by Kissinger, aimed to destroy the Ho Chi Minh trail, which, once again, wasn’t disrupted and just took innocent civilian lives in Laos. Laos also remained neutral in the Vietnam War. They were not involved, yet they were punished.

-Involvement in the Bangladesh Liberation War: this was a war between Bangladesh and Pakistan. Kissinger remained in a close relationship with Pakistan which, by now, was known to be committing horrendous human rights abuses, including large scale killings of the Bangladeshis. In fact, Kissinger and America provided funding for them. America was aligned in the first place because of bullshit Cold War alliances.

-Supporting and funding a dictator over an elected president: Chile had elected a *gasp* socialist president that really made Kissinger piss his pants. Project FUBELT, directly under Kissinger’s guidance, initiated covert actions to undermine and prevent the socialist President, Salvador Allende, from rising to power. Financial support was provided to anti-Allende groups and would eventually provided support to a military coup who would kill Allende. The leader of the coup, Augusto Pinochet, would then assume power and take rule an authoritarian government and become a dictator for 17 years. Under his rule, torture and executions were carried out against political dissidents and others. This wasn’t a secret.

-Supported the brutal invasion of East Timor: Indonesia would invade and occupy East Timor in 1975. Kissinger and Nixon had knowledge of the invasion beforehand and provided military support despite the knowledge of human rights abuses already taking place in East Timor by the Indonesians, abuses often using US weapons. Massacres, forced displacement, suppression of political dissents, torture, sexual abuse, restrictions of religious and cultural practices, and scorched earth policies are just some examples.

To my knowledge, these are usually the largest reasons cited, but please add more if I’m wrong. There are also lesser known atrocities either supported or funded by Kissinger, many taking place in Africa, that I thoroughly implore you to read about. Please correct any inaccurate things I said.

[mariacallous]

Until she fled Bangladesh on Monday, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina governed as if she still had full legitimacy, even as students and protesters had been on the streets for days asking her to resign. The trigger for the demonstrations—civil service job quotas for Bangladeshi freedom fighters and their families—had become a distant memory. Collective anger about years of human rights abuses, corruption, and rigged elections had coalesced into an uprising.

In a conversation over the weekend, Zonayed Saki, the left-leaning leader of the Ganosamhati Andolan party—himself a student activist against military rule in the 1990s—said, “The people’s sentiment is that she has to go first. The government had lost moral and political legitimacy.”

Hasina believed that she was elected democratically. She won an unprecedented fourth term in a flawed vote in January, which most of the major opposition parties had boycotted and the United States, the United Kingdom, and human rights groups criticized for not being free or fair. Still, other major governments congratulated Hasina on the victory. The bureaucracy, the media, the police, and the army were on her side. What could go wrong?

Over the weekend, Hasina declared a curfew again, cut off the internet, and encouraged the youth wing of the ruling Awami League party to take to the streets. Trigger-happy security forces, who were blamed for the deaths of more than 200 people as the protests turned violent in mid-July, were out in full force. Nearly 100 more people died over the weekend, including 14 police officers; video emerged showing security forces shooting point-blank at nonviolent protesters.

Hasina spoke darkly of Islamists spreading terrorism by co-opting the protests, but the students remained undeterred. A long march was announced for Aug. 5 to demand her resignation. Hasina declared a three-day public holiday in response. But by midday Monday, she had resigned, fleeing the country in a helicopter. The first stop would be India and after that an unknown destination.

Meanwhile, the situation on the ground has turned volatile amid the power vacuum. Thousands of demonstrators rushed to the Ganabhaban, the prime minister’s official residence in Dhaka, looting souvenirs and frolicking on the premises. People have also reportedly attacked the home of Bangladesh’s chief justice. There are also reports of the toppling of a statue of Hasina’s father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, who led Bangladesh’s independence movement and then ruled the country until he was assassinated in 1975. Mujib’s family home, now a museum, went up in flames in an act of grotesque retribution. These incidents stand in contrast to the disciplined and peaceful demonstrations led by students, who have urged for calm and were seen appealing to the looters to return stolen property.

Bangladesh’s army has called for calm, but it has not yet intervened. The country’s armed forces overthrew elected governments in the 1970s and 1980s and attempted coups in later years. But now, the generals would naturally want to play it safe: They cannot afford to lose the confidence of Bangladeshis and are aware of the deep distrust that Bangladeshis have developed for the armed forces because their political interventions have weakened the country’s democracy.

There is another calculation at play, too: Bangladesh is among the largest suppliers of soldiers to the United Nations peacekeeping forces, and it won’t antagonize the international community by letting its soldiers act at will. (Those peacekeeping arrangements mean the armed forces are less reliant on Bangladesh’s state budget.) In mid-July, when military vehicles with U.N. insignia were deployed on Dhaka’s streets, foreign diplomats rightly complained; Bangladeshi officials gave weak excuses and promised not to use U.N. equipment to settle domestic unrest.

Hasina seemed to have two options: to seek a graceful exit or to dig her heels in and let the troops take all necessary means to protect her regime. In the end, she fled. Where she will settle is unclear. India would pose problems for Prime Minister Narendra Modi; ruling party politicians have routinely criticized undocumented Bangladeshis in India, even creating legislation to identify and possibly deport them. The United Kingdom may be risky for Hasina because while it hosts many Bangladeshi immigrants, they include dissidents forced into exile during her 15-year rule as well as supporters of the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party.

Had Hasina dug in, there would have been bloody consequences. Even if the army had shown restraint toward the protesters, there is no telling if Bangladesh’s notorious border guards or the Rapid Action Battalion—which has faced criticism from human rights groups—would have acted responsibly. There has been violence on both sides, but it has come primarily from the Bangladeshi state. As of Monday, as many as 32 children had died, according to UNICEF.

By stepping aside disgracefully, Hasina leaves chaos in her wake. It is crucial that any interim administration restore order quickly, but it can only do so if it has the backing of the army. A list of bureaucrats, civil society veterans, and others who might form the nucleus of such a government has been released, but the situation is too fluid to consider such lists final. In the early 2000s, Bangladesh had an unelected but legitimate caretaker government to help assist its transition to democracy after a military intervention—which it did, paving the way for Hasina’s election in December 2008.

Hasina has long demonized Bangladesh’s Islamist political forces. But Islamic fundamentalist parties have secured more than 10 percent of the vote only once, in 1991; in all subsequent elections, their vote share has been closer to 5 to 6 percent. Most Bangladeshis are Muslims, but they aren’t extremists; in Bangladeshi American poet Tarfia Faizullah’s famous words, when a Pakistani soldier assaulted a Bengali woman in 1971 and asked her if she was Muslim or Bengali, she defiantly said, “Both.”

The song accompanying many videos of the protests last week was from the pre-Partition poet Dwijendralal Ray, a Hindu, celebrating the golden land of Bengal. To see Bangladesh in binary terms—of Muslim or not Muslim—shows a profound misreading of a complex society. It reveals the myopia of external observers, notably analysts close to the current Indian government, who had invested hugely in Hasina and irrationally fear that an Islamic republic is the only alternative to her rule. In so doing, they frittered away some of the goodwill that India had earned in Bangladesh over the years, particularly for its support during the liberation war.

As a result, the current situation in Bangladesh will complicate things for Modi, Hasina’s close friend. His government had invested hugely in their relationship, aiming to build a trade corridor across Bangladesh and seeking Bangladeshi support to curb separatism in northeastern India. This alienated India from Bangladeshis, who expected New Delhi to defend democratic forces in Dhaka. Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, whom Hasina condemned and called a “bloodsucker of the poor,” chided India for not doing enough: South Asia is a family, he said in a recent interview, and when a house is burning, brothers should come and help.

With Hasina fleeing, India has lost an ally it thought it could rely on. The road ahead for Bangladesh will be difficult. Expectations will be high, and the people will want early elections. If those are free and fair, a different Bangladesh can emerge. Whether it will be consistent with the liberal, secular, democratic ethos that Bangladesh’s founders fought for remains to be seen.

[rightnewshindi]

बांग्लादेश के बाद अब भारत के इस पड़ोसी देश में होने वाला है तख्तापलट, राष्ट्रपति ने विपक्ष पर लगाए आरोप

Maldives News: बांग्लादेश के बाद मालदीव में भी राजनीतिक संकट गहराने लगा है. वहां भी तख्ता पलट हो सकता है इस बात का डर राष्ट्रपति मोहम्मद मुइज्जू को सताने लगा है, जिसे लेकर उनकी रातों की नींद उड़ गई है. दरअसल मुइज्जू ने विपक्ष पर आर्थिक तक्ता पलट की साजिश रचने का आरोप लगाया है. मुइज्जू का कहना है विपक्ष आर्थिक तख्ता पलट की तैयारी कर रहा है वो सरकार के राना चाहता है इसे लेकर उन्होंने विपक्ष को…

[kailash-se-birha]

These leftist revolutionary fetishists are having a field day, cherishing mob rule in the name of ‘revolution,’ ‘power back to the people,’ ‘dictator out,’ and ‘Second Liberation’ rhetoric due to Sheikh Hasina’s ousting from power in Bangladesh. In 1971, during the first liberation, Dhaka’s streets were plagued by lawlessness, and its soil was bloodied red with Hindu lives. Colloquially, this incident is known as the Bangladeshi Genocide, even though most of the victims of rape, brutality, and massacres were Hindu. Unfortunately, the current situation in 2024 doesn’t appear any different. A military coup has been staged in Bangladesh, and I hope that law and order prevail, shielding Bangladeshi Hindus from further tragedy.

[somerabbitholes]

Books you would recommend on this topic? Colonial, post colonial, and Cold War Asia are topics that really interest me. (Essentially all of the 1900s)

Hello! An entire century is huge and I don't quite know what exactly you're looking for, but here we are, with a few books I like. I've tried organising them, but so many of these things bleed into each other so it's a bit of a jumble

Cold War

1971 by Srinath Raghavan: about the Bangladesh Liberation War within the context of the Cold War, US-Soviet rivalry, and the US-China axis in South Asia

Cold War in South Asia by Paul McGarr: largely focuses on India and Pakistan, and how the Cold War aggravated this rivalry; also how the existing tension added to the Cold War; also the transition from British dominance to US-Soviet contest

Kennedy, Johnson, and the Nonaligned World by Robert B. Rakove: on the US' ties with the Nonaligned countries during decolonisation and in the early years of the Cold War; how US policy dealt with containment, other strategic choices etc

South Asia's Cold War by Rajesh Basrur: specifically about nuclear buildup, armament and the Indo-Pak rivalry within the larger context of the Cold War, arms race, and disarmament movements

Colonialism

India's War by Srinath Raghavan: about India's involvement in World War II and generally what the war meant for South Asia politically, economically and in terms of defense strategies

The Coolie's Great War by Radhika Singha: about coolie labour (non-combatant forces) in the first World War that was transported from India to battlefronts in Europe, Asia and Africa

Unruly Waters by Sunil Amrith: an environmental history of South Asia through British colonial attempts of organising the flow of rivers and the region's coastlines

Underground Revolutionaries by Tim Harper: about revolutionary freedom fighters in Asia and how they met, encountered and borrowed from each other

Imperial Connections by Thomas R. Metcalf: about how the British Empire in the Indian Ocean was mapped out and governed from the Indian peninsula

Decolonisation/Postcolonial Asia

Army and Nation by Steven Wilkinson: a comparative look at civilian-army relations in post-Independence India and Pakistan; it tries to excavate why Pakistan went the way it did with an overwhelmingly powerful Army and a coup-prone democracy while India didn't, even though they inherited basically the same military structure

Muslim Zion by Faisal Devji: a history of the idea of Pakistan and its bearing on the nation-building project in the country

The South Asian Century by Joya Chatterji: it's a huge book on 20th century South Asia; looks at how the subcontinental landmass became three/four separate countries, and what means for history and culture and the people on the landmass

India Against Itself by Sanjib Baruah: about insurgency and statebuilding in Assam and the erstwhile NEFA in India's Northeast. Also see his In the Name of the Nation.

I hope this helps!

[roomselfcontain2]

Small room moody bedroom visit website studio self-contained apartment for rent very cheap and affordable home with front veranda and protector stable light with security located at rumuekini axis in port Harcourt city rivers state Nigeria.

[communist-ojou-sama]

Okay so I'm gonna go ahead and put a disclaimer up top that these are the ramblings of a dilettante that shouldn't be taken too seriously, but I think that people (understandably) frustrated with with the ICJ ruling and convinced it will have no material consequences should consider some things before they say that.

The first thing I want to remind everyone is that the west is far from invincible. Their rule is not iron-clad and their ability to enforce their will on the world is far from complete and is waning apace.

I think a lot about how in the process of the transition to late capitalism (as I personally define it), one consequence of the mass financialization of the economy is the pricing-out of most common consumer commodity-based manufacturing enterprise in favor of transactions that are most elastic in price, and how the result of that is a mass outflow of raw productive capacity from the imperial core to the global periphery.

If I can frame that in another way, and forgive me in framing this in very neutral terms, but it turns these countries from production-rich countries to production-poor countries with economies defined by the phenomenon of asset-price inflation.

The resulting global situation is that, similar to the assertion that Africa for example is rich because it's where the natural resources that facilitate the global economy are located, Mexico is rich. Vietnam is rich. Bangladesh is rich. These countries are awash in raw capacity to create goods that have a use value. What is the one thing that keeps them relatively cash-poor?

That is, the law. There's a bit of poetry in the idea that just as how within imperial core economies the most important economic instruments are legal contracts to either some percentage of a company's equity or its debt, what sustains its (nominal) riches over the global periphery is a legal regime of ownership that entitles them to the rights to all of the profits going on in these incredibly production-rich countries in the Global South.

It is absolutely correct to say that at the highest level, these legal regimes are enforced at the barrel of the gun, we've seen how too much refusal to to honor these laws by heads of state can lead to mass disinvestment and eventually coups d'état, and even now it would not be a good idea to say, seize the productive assets of a bunch of US firms.

However, and this is where the ICJ comes back in to my point, let's not think about the US. Let's think about, for example, the Netherlands or Belgium. These countries maintain fantastic financial wealth via contracts of ownership with countries in the global south but they are also small and geopolitically unimportant, with little in the way of individual military power.

For little countries like these, genuinely the Only thing that secures their ability to act as a parasite on the global productive economy is the strength of legitimacy that international law affords them, and the position of overwhelming power the west Once had, decades ago.

But the power and prestige of the West continues, as I said, to wane apace. it's too early to happen now but these less militaristic countries are aware of how exposed their assets are to simple seizure if over time international law comes to be seen as a joke.

As awful and condamnable as the current global system is, it is not total dictatorship. It is only able to perpetuate itself because the overwhelming majority of countries that are parties to it have buy in and because, albeit much more slowly than they could have under socialism, they have been able to make dents in their own poverty with it.

The exposure of the international law framework as having absolutely no legitimacy, as being a naked tool of domination of rich countries over poor countries has knock-on effects that stand to be incredibly dangerous to less militarily capable countries that rely on them for their economic structures. On a long-term scale, especially as these countries become richer and more geopolitically influential in their own right, they may well begin to pose the question: why Shouldn't I seize these french factories in my country? Why Shouldn't I seize this Belgian-owned diamond mine? Why Should I pay back this IMF loan, if the ICJ framework can't even compel the Zionist Enemy to end a genocide? And I promise you, this is a reality of which at least some people in those countries are highly cognizant and wary, so I'd wait and see a bit before being Too pessimistic.