The United States of America played no significant role in the period preceding the Indian subcontinent’s independence from the British Raj. Indeed, the Gadar Party began as a San Francisco-based anti-colonial movement, as did the New York-based India Home Rule League created by Lala Lajpat Rai, but the US government remained mostly unaware of subcontinental activities.
Only after World War II, when tensions between competing ‘blocs’ erupted and the Cold War began, did the United States go into overdrive to control the subcontinental narrative. To achieve its interests, the United States had supported military dictators in Pakistan and undemocratic monarchy in Afghanistan and Nepal, while remaining openly antagonistic to India.
Washington DC conveniently ignored the horrific actions of Pakistani generals in what subsequently became Bangladesh. Americans were important in harnessing toxic religiosity by establishing the Afghan mujahedeen, whose scourge persists to this day. Pakistan was a ‘Major Non-NATO Ally’ that conducted the majority of its operations in the region.
The Cold War ended with the implosion of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, coinciding with China’s ascendancy as the new primary adversary. This resulted in a recalibration of allies and enemies, which eventually prompted Washington to adopt a more pro-India stance, despite the fact that an unnatural alliance with Pakistan persisted due to the needs of Afghanistan and combating religious extremism.
For a multitude of causes, including the ongoing ‘War on Terror’ in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Iran, as well as the most recent Israel-Palestine conflict, attitudes of America in the Ummah (Islamic World) were inevitably negative. This frequently makes the United States the primary suspect for anything that goes wrong in Tehran, Kabul, Damascus, Islamabad, or even Dhaka.
Invariably, Americans are portrayed participating in Samuel P Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations,’ which appears to pit the Americans as a force against the Ummah. America-bashing is a latent and persistent undercurrent that is exploited by many political parties in the region’s Islamic countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Maldives, and Bangladesh, whether or not it is justified.
There is no denying that America has had an amoral past, with many mistakes and convenient overlooking of events, but it is also true that many political parties have twisted and even extrapolated the same to suggest outsized agendas for Washington DC because they know that such a spiel appeals to the popular and basic instincts of their constituents.
In Pakistan, amidst turf disputes between the Military ‘establishment’ and Imran Khan’s Tehreek-e-Insaaf administration, the cunning Imran Khan fabricated a ‘cypher’ controversy involving a foreign force, namely the United States.
This effort attempted to merge two foes (one already created, i.e., the United States, and the other requiring context, i.e., the Pakistani military) in order to assign a disproportionate role to the Americans, as it was safe and popular to do so.
Americans have historically had a say in Pakistani politics, but Imran Khan’s resignation was more the result of the Pakistani ‘establishment’ taking the initiative and the Americans agreeing to it, rather than the other way around.
Today, realizing the folly of overplaying the America-hand scenario, Imran Khan has expertly shifted the attack onto his local political rivals rather than the Americans or even the Pakistani ‘system’, as he had done previously.
After creating a tinderbox-like atmosphere and subsequent collapse, Bangladesh’s former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is thought to have enlisted the help of the United States in the most recent coup.
While it is true that Dhaka under Hasina had taken a confrontational position and even cozied up to its foe, China, by accepting Beijing’s overtures, Bangladesh was not China’s bunny in the same way that Pakistan is, and it was not prepared to go that way either.
True, Hasina denied the American request for a military facility in the Saint Martin Islands, but this was more out of good judgment given the prevailing societal emotions and local politics.
The only thing that riled Hasina was the US’s routine concern that Hasina was becoming increasingly undemocratic, intolerant, and authoritarian (which she was); however, aside from these concerns, Hasina and the Americans shared a common enemy in religious-extremist forces that threatened both sides’ interests.
Also Read: Rivalry between US, China may hit Bangladesh hard
Hasina also escalated her American rhetoric because it carried no dangers and may endear her to Bangladeshi society, as the Ummah has been hurt by the emotions of the Palestine war and the US’s tacit role.
Hasina’s alleged claim of the US orchestrating regime change in Bangladesh (in her unfinished address) must be interpreted contextually. His claim that she would be in power if she had given up “Saint Martin and Bay of Bengal” is more theatrical than true, as Bangladeshis (particularly young) were genuinely bored of her leadership.
If anything, the forces that have come to power reflect the sort of spirit and religious tenor that militates against American preferences. Hasina’s exit has more to do with her hubris and excesses than with America working overtime to dislodge her. America is just a convenient (though often justified) enemy in Islamic countries and those who are inelegantly bumped out resort to blaming the USA hand on the rebound e.g., Pakistan earlier, Bangladesh now.
