If Trump administration is concerned about Bangladeshi minorities, why not for Indian minorities?
#News Bureau March 17,2008
America is concerned about religious minorities in Bangladesh, but is there similar concern about minorities in other countries as well? Doesn’t this determine how much interest America has in that matter?
This question is being raised because US intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard, in an interview to NDTV World, has expressed deep concern over the persecution of religious minorities in Bangladesh and reiterated the Trump administration’s commitment to defeat ‘Islamic terrorism’. But this statement raises many questions. Does this concern of the Trump administration also apply to the situation of minorities, especially Muslims, in countries like India? Why did Gabbard use the term ‘Islamic terrorism’ and is it correct?
Gabbard, who reached New Delhi, met PM Modi in New Delhi on Monday amidst this statement. Before this meeting, Gabbard said in an interview to the English media that the persecution of Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and other minorities in Bangladesh is a matter of concern for the US. She described the ideology of Islamic Caliphate as the main goal of terrorist groups and emphasized the Trump administration’s plan to end it. This statement came in the context of increasing radicalism and violence in Bangladesh, where attacks on minorities have increased in recent months. But the question arises whether this concern of America is selective?
In India, incidents of violence against the Muslim community have come to the fore in the last few years. There have been complaints of mob lynching and discrimination on religious grounds. These issues have been mentioned in the annual religious freedom report of the US State Department, but the Trump administration did not speak openly on India about it. India was not mentioned in Gabbard’s statement, which indicates that America’s concern may be influenced by regional and strategic interests.
It is also right for India to raise the issue of minorities in Bangladesh, as instability there affects India’s borders. But America’s silence on violence against Muslims in India raises the question whether this is a double standard? The Trump administration is believed to consider India a strategic partner, so it avoids criticism on issues here, while it is easier and more profitable to put pressure on Bangladesh.
Here, Gabbard’s use of the term ‘Islamic terrorism’ reiterates Trump’s old policy, which has been criticized before. This term links terrorism to a religion, which can increase prejudice against the Muslim community
Critics say that the ideology of terrorism should be separated from religious identity, because it ignores radicalism in all religions. For example, Hindu radicalism in India or Christian radicalism in the US could have been discussed, but Gabbard focused on ‘Islamist’. The question is whether this word weakens cooperation at the global level or helps in fighting terrorism?
The US has many interests behind its concern about Bangladesh. First, ensuring stability in South Asia, especially when the relationship between Bangladesh and Pakistan’s ISI is growing. Indian Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi has also expressed concern over this. Second, Trump’s claim to end global terrorism under his ‘America First’ policy, which strengthens his domestic image. Third, deepening strategic partnership with India, because instability in Bangladesh is also a threat to India.
Why is it a danger?
In the last few months, incidents of violence against religious minorities, especially Hindus, have increased in Bangladesh. Along with this, the increasing coordination between Bangladesh and Pakistan’s notorious intelligence agency ISI has become a threat to regional security. Last month, Indian Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi had expressed concern that ISI officers are present in those areas of Bangladesh which are close to India’s border, especially the Siliguri Corridor. He had said, ‘If people from the country (America), which is called the center of terrorism, go to our neighboring country, then we should be worried. We have to ensure that they do not use that land to send terrorists to India.’
This concern deepens when there are reports of encouragement of radical forces under the interim government in Bangladesh. Gabbard’s statement shows America’s activism in this context, which is important not only for the security of religious minorities but also for stability in South Asia.
During the meeting between PM Modi and Trump in Washington in February, Trump had said about the situation in Bangladesh, ‘This is an issue on which the Prime Minister has been working for a long time. I am reading it. I leave Bangladesh to the Prime Minister.’ This statement shows Trump’s cooperation with India and trust in Modi’s regional leadership ability. However, Gabbard’s latest statement makes it clear that the Trump administration is now ready to play an active role on this issue.
Gabbard’s statement presents the US as an active player in the region, which can work closely with allies like India. But the silence on minorities in India indicates that the US prioritizes its own interests, not a uniform human rights policy at the global level.
Tulsi Gabbard’s statement on Bangladesh reflects the Trump administration’s counter-terrorism policy and regional strategy. But her silence on the situation of minorities in countries like India and the use of words like ‘Islamic terrorism’ raises the question whether this concern is real or strategic? The US benefits from increasing its influence in the region and strengthening its alliance with India, but this double standard can question its credibility. The question is also whether this policy will be effective in stopping terrorism or will only increase global tensions.
