Pakistan was created by the British as a strategic bulwark against the Soviet Union, an extension of the Great Game into the post–World War II era. With the onset of the Cold War, the United States inherited this geopolitical design. In 1971, however, the Soviet Union countered by facilitating the dismemberment of Pakistan through India, giving birth to Bangladesh.
The Cold War did not end there. In 1975, the US deep state engineered regime change in Bangladesh through the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. His successor, Ziaur Rahman, pro-US and pro-Pakistan, amended the Constitution to legitimise Jamaat-e- Islami (JeI). As the Cold War intensified following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Ziaur Rahman himself was assassinated in 1981. He was succeeded by General H.M. Ershad, another pro-US and pro-Pakistan ruler, who aligned Bangladesh militarily with the US during the Gulf War and made Islam the state religion.
A clear pattern emerges: the closer Pakistan and Bangladesh align with the United States, the stronger the political role of radical Islam. Conversely, when US interest wanes, democratic forces assert themselves. After the Cold War, Bangladesh witnessed alternating democratic rule between the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) under Khaleda Zia and the Awami League (AL) under Sheikh Hasina from 1991 to 2014. From 2014 onward, Awami League dominance was near total.
In 2024, the US deep state struck back. Mohammad Yunus was installed as Bangladesh’s ruler. While the strategic context had changed, the playbook remained familiar. This is the geopolitical journey of Bangladesh, formerly East Bengal, then East Pakistan, now once again being pushed backwards.
Bangladesh: Back to East Pakistan
On 5 August 2024, Sheikh Hasina was forced to resign and flee to India with her sister, Sheikh Rehana. Protesters stormed her official residence. Her safe exit was secured by India and Bangladesh Army Chief General Waker-uz-Zaman. Throughout the turbulence, two constants remained: India and the Bangladesh Army.
What began as a student protest against quotas quickly morphed into a broader movement aimed not merely at removing Sheikh Hasina, but at erasing the legacy of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the architect of Bangladesh, and reversing the ideological foundations of the state.
That intent became unmistakable on 5 February 2025, when Sheikh Mujib’s historic residence at 32 Dhanmondi, now a museum, was occupied and demolished. The attackers, operating under the banner of Inquilab Moncho and comprising the National Citizens Party (NCP), Jamaat-e-Islami, Hefazat-e-Islami, and other jihadi groups, celebrated the destruction. Slogans demanding the removal of the national anthem followed.
The message was unambiguous: a repudiation of pro-India Bangladesh and a desire to return to the Pakistani ideological fold, if not formally as East Pakistan, then as a jihadi- aligned state.
An Indian Parliamentary Committee led by Shashi Tharoor captured the moment succinctly:
“The 1971 challenge was existential… Today’s threat is more subtle, but potentially more serious… the collapse of Awami League dominance, the rise of youth nationalism, the return of Islamist forces, and the growing influence of China and Pakistan mark a decisive turning point.”
As this article was being written, Khaleda Zia passed away. Her death, coupled with Sheikh Hasina’s forced exile, represents a tectonic generational shift in Bangladesh. It alters political chemistry, disrupts Islamist calculations, and risks puncturing the manufactured romance of the so-called “July Revolution.”
Pakistan Re-enters the Arena
Since Yunus’s ascendance, a steady stream of Pakistani military delegations has visited Bangladesh. These include Pakistan Navy Chief Admiral Naveed Ashraf and Joint Chiefs Chairman Shahid Shamsher Mirza. In a deliberate provocation to India, Yunus presented Mirza with a book depicting a distorted map of Bangladesh incorporating India’s northeastern states.
For the first time in 54 years, a Pakistan Navy ship, PNS Saif, docked in Bangladesh in November 2025 and signed a secret “terms of agreement.” Subsequent reciprocal naval visits followed, signalling a rapid deepening of military ties.
Such moves far exceed the mandate of a caretaker government. Yunus has acted with extraordinary urgency, reshaping Bangladesh’s strategic orientation as though racing against an externally imposed deadline.
Jamaat-e-Islami, ideologically wedded to Pakistan and deeply embedded in its military- intelligence ecosystem, has re-emerged as a central force. It remains the progenitor of jihadi organisations across the subcontinent, with its branches coordinating seamlessly across borders.
The so-called revolution was, in reality, a Jamaat-engineered operation executed under Yunus’s stewardship and patronised by the Biden administration. Since Yunus took power, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad delegations have visited Bangladesh, surveying border areas. Pakistan’s jihadi ecosystem is being deliberately transplanted.
In November 2025, the International Khatme Nabuwat Grand Council convened in Bangladesh for the first time, demanding the declaration of Ahmadis as non-Muslims. Clerics from across South Asia and the Middle East attended. Jamaat played a key organising role. Chhatra Shibir, Jamaat’s student wing, has led attacks on Ahmadi properties.
A caretaker regime hosting an international conference targeting a community of barely one lakh people exposes its radical trajectory, not only against Hindus, but against dissenting Muslims.
The US Role
Mohammad Yunus was openly foisted into power by the West, particularly the United States. Within months, he visited the US and addressed a Clinton Global Initiative event, where he credited student leader Mehfooz Alam as the architect of the movement. Bill Clinton’s applause revealed the personal and strategic investment of the US establishment in regime change.
During Biden’s presidency, it was Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama who effectively shaped foreign policy outcomes.
Why Bangladesh? Sheikh Hasina has provided the answer. She publicly stated that the US pressured her relentlessly to hand over St Martin’s Island and that Western powers were scheming to carve out a Christian state from parts of India, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. Coming from a two-decade-long Prime Minister and Mujib’s daughter, such assertions cannot be dismissed lightly.
China, meanwhile, has sought a naval base on Sonadia Island. Its Belt and Road Initiative, via the China–Myanmar and China–Bangladesh Economic Corridors, threatens to reshape the Bay of Bengal and undermine the US Indo-Pacific strategy.
While Yunus stalled CBEC and Pakistan crippled CPEC under US pressure, Myanmar’s rare-earth-rich regions, inhabited by predominantly Christian Kachins, have become the new strategic prize. China controls most of the world’s rare earths; without them, modern technology, weapons, and AI are impossible. Bangladesh offers the US a pivot to challenge this monopoly.
Extra-Regional Players
Bangladesh, Manipur, and Myanmar are aflame not because of local actors alone, but due to extra-regional powers, the US, China, Pakistan, and Turkey. Turkey’s involvement flows from Erdoğan’s ambition to revive a pan-Islamic leadership role.
Russia, though less visible since the Soviet collapse, remains influential. It supplies Bangladesh with defence platforms, is building the Rooppur nuclear plant, and has issued pointed reminders of its and India’s role in Bangladesh’s liberation.
US–Russia rivalry in the Bay of Bengal is thus not new; it has merely returned in a new guise.
India’s Decisive Role
India alone envelops Bangladesh historically, geographically, and civilisationally. With over 4,000 km of shared borders, any strategic shift in Bangladesh reverberates across five Indian states.
Geography dictates that Bangladesh cannot survive without India, a truth Pakistan learned in 1971. If Yunus continues to defy it, Bangladesh risks fragmentation, enabling US footholds and a China counterweight.
Yunus’s remarks in China portraying Bangladesh as the “guardian of the ocean” while belittling India’s Northeast were calculated provocations. China was unlikely fooled.
Bangladesh’s proposed acquisition of Eurofighter Typhoons and Turkish attack helicopters marks a decisive break from Soviet and Chinese platforms, a strategic realignment firmly embedded in the Indo-Pacific framework.
Pakistan: An Ideology
For external powers, Bangladesh is a chessboard. For India, it is existential. Pakistan is not merely a state; it is an ideology that transcends borders, fuelling migration, radicalisation, and jihadist currents.
Hindus in Bangladesh and India are caught in this vortex. Rising violence and intimidation must be viewed as part of a single regional continuum. India ignores this at its peril.
Conclusion
South Asia’s strategic epicentre has shifted from Af-Pak to the Bay of Bengal. Rare earths now occupy the role oil once did. India must protect its security, preserve BIMSTEC, sustain Act East, and prevent Bangladesh from becoming de facto East Pakistan. This requires action both physical and ideological, including strengthening the pro-India constituency within Bangladesh. Despite intimidation, that constituency endures. Early signs of political coordination to block Jamaat-e-Islami from steering Bangladesh toward a Taliban-style future offer a narrow but vital window of hope.
(The content of this article reflects the views of writer and contributor, not necessarily those of the publisher and editor. All disputes are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of competent courts and forums in Delhi/New Delhi only)
Leave Your Comment