Category: Opinion

  • Why Doesn’t India Have More States?

    Why Doesn’t India Have More States?

    Uttar Pradesh, a northern state of India, has a population of 240 million. If it were an independent country, it would be the sixth largest in the world by population. The state spans 243,286 square kilometers and has a legislative assembly of 403 members. It’s difficult to imagine how the administration functions effectively when the chief minister can’t review even one constituency a day, let alone remember each one. This challenge isn’t unique to Uttar Pradesh – other large states like Maharashtra, Bihar, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh face similar issues. Despite the size and population of these states, there are no significant movements at the administrative level for division and the formation of new states, although the idea is active on social media. Any political effort to propose new states faces significant opposition. While the U.S., with a population of 330 million, has 50 states, India, with 1.4 billion people, remains with only 28 states. This situation creates enormous challenges in governance, public administration, and even public health.

    When the modern Republic of India was formed in 1950, after a long period of Ottoman and British colonization, it faced a significant challenge in dividing the country into provinces due to its multi-ethnic and multi-cultural population. At the time, many people were uneducated, deeply emotional, and strongly tied to their cultural identities. The framers of the Constitution feared that dissatisfaction with the division of states could lead to riots or even secession movements to form new countries. To address this, they decided to use language as the primary criterion for state formation, leading to the creation of 14 states based on linguistic lines while continuing some of the provinces established during British rule. This approach worked to some extent, but over time, demands for statehood grew for various reasons, including the desire to recognize different ethnic groups and cultures. Many new states were formed as a result, but in the 21st century, only four states have been created, primarily for administrative purposes.

    It’s clear that managing such large states presents administrative challenges, but the issue is primarily political. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which currently rules India, is opposed to dividing states and forming smaller ones. The party prioritizes nationalism over localism and doesn’t want to create new states that might foster regional identities. Another concern for the BJP is the rise of local parties; they fear that smaller states would become breeding grounds for parties that push local agendas, which could threaten national interests. Additionally, demographics play a role—the BJP is wary that smaller states might give more importance to Muslim votes, which the party may struggle to secure. Smaller states with smaller populations would likely elevate the significance of minority votes. There’s also the concern about the lack of resources and revenue in smaller states.

    The Indian National Congress and the Samajwadi Party, the second and third largest parties, are also against the division of states. Public opposition to dividing states is another major issue, often leading to violent protests. People are emotionally connected to their states, and any move to divide them can be exploited by politicians for their own interests. However, another national party, the Bahujan Samaj Party, supports the creation of smaller states for more effective administration and the rule of law. In fact, in 2011, they even passed a bill in the Uttar Pradesh state assembly to divide the state, but it was halted by both the then and current central governments.

    As the population becomes younger and more educated, many believe that emotional attachments to states will diminish, leading to a growing demand among younger generations for smaller states and more efficient administration. The call for new states is gaining support on social media, where several campaigns are gathering momentum. However, the central government has shown little interest in these demands. It is evident that the division of large states would lead to smoother administration and better enforcement of the law, since the government has not prioritized birth control. It is likely that public demand for smaller states will intensify in the near future, especially as people grow frustrated with poor government services and a lack of jobs, eventually forcing the government to act.

  • How Long Can Pakistan Remain a Republic?

    How Long Can Pakistan Remain a Republic?

    Pakistan, a state formed by the division of British India in response to the long-standing demands of Islamists in the Indian subcontinent, has always been a battleground between conservative Muslims and British-educated Muslims. From the country’s inception in 1947, leaders like Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who strongly advocated for Pakistan and led the movement for its creation in British India, envisioned a modern state that included Sunni and Shia Muslims, as well as Ahmadiyya, who are considered outcasts of Islam, and Dalits, the outcasts of India. However, there was strong opposition from conservatives who demanded an Islamic state based on Sharia law, which excludes rights for anyone outside Sunni Islam.

    Pakistan has never fully resolved these internal conflicts, which have even called its foundation into question. The 1956 constitution reflected these disputes by blending British modern values with Islamic principles, declaring Pakistan the world’s first “Islamic Republic.” Initially, British-supported and British-educated individuals dominated the administration, maintaining a relatively peaceful period in the country. Since the 1970s, the situation has changed dramatically. Corruption among leaders, the influx of Middle Eastern funds promoting a strict form of Islam, the Islamic Revolution in Iran that rejected modernism, the rise of the Islamic Emirate in Afghanistan, and the resurgence of Hindu nationalism in India have all fueled support for Islamist factions in Pakistan. Political parties that once championed coexistence have moved towards more radical stances. Combined with worsening living conditions in a failing state, these factors have contributed to the rise of terrorism. Pakistan, which sheltered Osama bin Laden and conducted terrorist operations in several countries, eventually became one of the hotspots of Islamic terrorism, making life increasingly difficult for seculars and liberals.

    Now, Islamist factions, including Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Islamist political parties like Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), led by Imran Khan, are more influential in the country than conventional ones, reflecting the changing mood in the state. This shift is evident in the transformation of the country’s most popular leader, Imran Khan, once the stylish captain of Pakistan’s national cricket team, who was married to a liberal British woman and has now become one of the country’s most prominent Islamic preachers. He established an Islamist party and married a wife who wears a burqa – a change visible throughout the state.

    Pakistan, once considered a potential competitor with India in science and technology with strong support from the UK, the US, and Saudi Arabia—all of whom sought to elevate Pakistan as a rival to India – now appears to be deteriorating into a more extremist Islamic state, resembling Afghanistan. However, this does not satisfy the Islamists, who demand further Islamization of the administration. Attacks on British-influenced or modern-valued administrative systems and institutions have increased under the banner of anti-colonialism. In addition to frequent terrorist attacks and bomb blasts targeting opposition groups, attacks on police stations and courts – key remnants of the British-introduced system – have become increasingly common. In the border regions near Afghanistan and Iran, where the TTP (commonly known as the Pakistani Taliban) is strong, there was a record surge in violence last year. According to Al Jazeera, Pakistan’s two border provinces have seen a 93 percent rise in attacks since the TTP ended its ceasefire in 2022. Most recently, a video trending on X shows Islamic clerics attempting to invade the Supreme Court to attack the Chief Justice, whom they accuse of supporting minorities. It is clear that, after politics, the judiciary and the law have become the latest targets of the Islamists. Even though the Islamic Republic of Pakistan already has biased Islamic codes that make life miserable for minorities, the Islamists demand the introduction of complete Sharia law, which would undermine human rights and modern values.

    The question is how long Pakistan can continue with the current constitution and Islamic Republic status, which includes many British and modern values, as extremism and radicalism rise. It is noted that people do not have much belief in the current administration system, which imposes tough living conditions. There is also little expectation of change in the administration style, as politicians are seen as embezzling money to the UK, and the country is heavily in debt to China. This creates a perfect environment for radicalism to grow. With the situation in Iran, Afghanistan, or Bangladesh not far from Pakistan, a revolution is also possible here. However, the result is unlikely to be a modern government like in many Muslim countries; it may be a more Islamic government, potentially worse than Afghanistan, as Pakistanis may feel the need to prove they are more authentic Muslims than the Arabs.

  • The Story of Alice Guo, the Philippine Mayor Who Alleged Chinese Espionage

    The Story of Alice Guo, the Philippine Mayor Who Alleged Chinese Espionage

    In 2022, Alice Guo was elected as the new mayor of Bomaban, a town on Luzon, the Philippines largest and most populous island. Despite limited public information about her background, such as her birthplace or education, Guo defeated the Nationalist People’s Coalition candidate. It was clear that this independent candidate with an uncertain past heavily invested in her campaign, with expenses exceeding ₱134,000, as reported in her Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE). Although her background and activities raised doubts, Guo remained in office until last week, specifically August 13, when she was dismissed by the Ombudsman.

    In a country like the Philippines, where corruption is widespread, such events may seem plausible. However, the controversy intensified when Guo accused a Chinese spy and presented evidence of her connections to China, significantly affecting Philippine politics. As tensions between China and the Philippines rose – especially after another vessel collision – news emerged that Alice Guo, who was on trial, had escaped the country. This development was a major blow to the Philippine judiciary and political systems.

    Alice Guo’s story took a dramatic turn in March when officials raided a compound in her town and found around 1,000 workers, including victims of human trafficking, along with luxury villas, high-end cars, and expensive cognac. Investigators discovered a panic room and three underground tunnels at the eight-hectare (20-acre) site, which were believed to be escape routes for evading authorities. The Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Commission (PAOCC) reported that these tunnels led to a vacant plot of land owned by Guo. Guo, a controversial figure, reportedly owned 50% of Baofu, the compound where the criminal activities occurred, though she claims to have sold her share before becoming mayor. Despite these suspicious circumstances, Guo was involved in important meetings as a small-town mayor.

    In June 2024, the Ombudsman suspended Guo from her position as mayor for up to six months following graft charges filed by the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG). On August 13, 2024, the Ombudsman dismissed Guo from office. When Guo appeared before senators, she struggled to answer questions about her childhood, claiming she had grown up on a farm in Bamban. However, school records revealed by a senator contradicted her statements about her education. Additionally, the election commission discovered that the fingerprints on her election records matched those of a Chinese citizen. During the hearings, Senator Hontiveros accused Guo of possibly being a Chinese spy or criminal. Guo has since ceased attending Senate hearings, with her lawyer citing trauma from the experience and the widespread mockery of her responses on social media.

    Guo is now the subject of a Senate arrest warrant for failing to attend hearings. However, reports have surfaced that she managed to outsmart authorities and flee the country. On Monday, Senator Risa Hontiveros claimed that Guo had left the Philippines, a claim previously denied by the Department of Justice. Hontiveros provided evidence indicating that Guo arrived at Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Malaysia on July 18, prompting questions about how she could have evaded such close scrutiny. Officials allege that Guo then flew to Singapore and later took a ferry to Riau, Indonesia, on August 18. An Indonesian immigration official confirmed her entry into the country that day, according to a Reuters report. The media began to celebrate it as a perfect spy game.

    President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. expressed anger over the news, despite the Chinese spy charges against Guo being upheld in court. He announced that a full-scale investigation is underway to determine how Guo managed to leave the country, and those responsible will be suspended and held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. The presidential office has also ordered the cancellation of her passport. 

    The president’s statement highlights the weaknesses and vulnerabilities in the Philippine administration system, which has long been criticized for corruption and poor rule of law. Despite Guo running as an independent candidate, she supported Marcos Jr. during the 2022 campaign, backing both Bongbong Marcos for president and Sara Duterte for vice president. As the government defends itself, it will be interesting to see if China has deployed more spies in countries of strategic interest.

  • What Hamas Has Done to the Palestinians

    What Hamas Has Done to the Palestinians

    Gaza, the tiny piece of land on the Mediterranean coast densely populated with around 20 million people, is suffering greatly from the wrath of Israel. In the name of the promised state of Palestine or in an effort to maintain Muslim solidarity worldwide, the people – mainly Sunni Muslims – are enduring immense hardships. The death toll has risen to nearly 40,000 according to Hamas health authorities, while Israel reports around 1,000 deaths, including women and children. Injuries are expected to surpass 100,000. However, a truce remains elusive as neither Israel nor Hamas, the rulers of Gaza, are willing to settle. As Hamas, an organization that aims to uphold Islamic values and wage holy war against Israel, refuses to move toward peace by releasing hostages, civilians in Gaza are being harshly punished. Hamas is, in fact, punishing the Gazan people for choosing them, all in the name of God.

    Israel is now relentlessly destroying Gaza to punish Hamas, along with those who support them, and to dismantle all infrastructure intended for attacks on Israel. After the brutal October 7th attack on Israel, the country is no longer willing to gamble with its people’s lives. Consequently, Israel’s assault on Gaza is leading to what may be one of the worst war crimes in modern history. Hamas, committed to the removal of Israel and the Islamization of the region, initiated the brutal attack after a long pause during the Jewish holiday, showing no mercy to civilians.

    Now, they blame Israel, refuse to release hostages, and perpetuate suffering for their perceived heavenly reward. Israel, particularly under Netanyahu’s leadership, is using the situation very strategically. The attack by Hamas is now being used by Israel on a global scale to undermine the Palestinian cause, which is a dream for Muslims worldwide. It appears that Hamas has destroyed those dreams.

    The Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, has governed the Gaza Strip since 2007. The movement was founded in 1987 by quadriplegic Palestinian imam and activist Ahmed Yassin and has been associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. In the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, Hamas secured a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council by campaigning on promises of a corruption-free government and advocating for resistance as a means to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation. However, the Islamist organization, which does not recognize the existence of Israel, was seen as a significant threat to Israel. This tension culminated in the Battle of Gaza in 2007, after which Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip from the rival moderate Palestinian faction Fatah. Since then, Hamas has governed the territory independently of the Palestinian National Authority.

    Following Hamas’s takeover, Israel significantly intensified existing movement restrictions and imposed a complete blockade on the Gaza Strip, with Egypt also enforcing a blockade starting in 2007. Hamas has conducted attacks against Israeli civilians, including suicide bombings and rocket launches targeting Israeli cities. As a result of these militant activities and attacks on civilian targets, several countries – including Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States – have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization. Although Hamas has exploited the harsh conditions in Gaza caused by the blockade to fuel hatred among the youth, this situation has inadvertently benefited Israel, allowing them to brand Palestinians as terrorists and weaken Arab countries efforts to gain recognition for Palestine.

    The October 7th attack will be remembered as one of Hamas’s biggest blunders. At the time, Israel was deeply fractured by internal politics, with citizens protesting against the government. However, the Hamas attack unexpectedly united the Israeli people and strengthened their support for the government. Hamas may have believed that the weakened Israeli government would collapse under the assault, that taking hostages would soften Israel’s response, and that they could eventually negotiate peace through Qatari mediation, allowing Hamas to continue ruling Gaza and secure more funding from the Islamic world.

    However, Netanyahu, a shrewd leader, saw this as an opportunity to unite the nation and solidify his grip on power. Now, Israel no longer feels the need to compromise with Hamas or the Palestinians, as they have a clear justification for their actions.

    Life in Gaza is unbearable, with all boundaries of human suffering crossed. Even before the 2021 Israel-Palestine crisis, Gaza faced 48% unemployment, and half of its population lived in poverty. However, with the renewed Israel-Hamas conflict, life has become even more miserable. Death, injuries, and destruction have become daily occurrences, with businesses shutting down and access to basic necessities like food and water severely limited. As Hamas continues its battle with Israel, the United States and other countries have been limited in their ability to intervene, while Arab countries, which once celebrated Gaza as a symbol of Islamic resistance, are also not addressing the crisis. The people of Gaza seem abandoned, allowed by extremists to become martyrs for heaven. When we examine Hamas’s contribution to Palestine, it’s clear that they have made the lives of Gazans more miserable and have led to the collapse of the Palestinian cause.

  • How Foreign Influence Shapes Bangladesh?

    How Foreign Influence Shapes Bangladesh?

    Even though Bangladesh claims a constructed identity of Islamic Bangla, it is actually a product of conflict between the region’s superpowers, India and Pakistan. This former part of Pakistan became an independent state in 1971 with the intervention of India. The conflict nearly escalated into a world war, as Pakistan received strong support from the United States, while the Soviet Union aligned with India. Even after independence, Bangladesh has remained entangled in power politics, with foreign powers interfering and causing various political incidents, including assassinations, coups, and student protests. Political analysts point to this foreign interference as a cause of the recent wave of protests that led to the toppling of the government. Why is Bangladesh subject to such interference, and who is making it prone to unrest?

    Bangladesh, a small and densely populated country, has highly congested living conditions. A spark can lead to mass unrest that can affect the administration in Dhaka. This is why Bangladesh is often in turmoil, with mass mob actions being common, making it susceptible to foreign interference. India’s and Pakistan’s involvement in Bangladesh stems from their mutual fears. India is particularly concerned that any instability in Bangladesh could destabilize its eastern regions. Since Bangladesh shares the majority of its border with India, any conflict within Bangladesh could result in a significant influx of refugees into India, posing substantial political and economic challenges. Many districts in India have become Muslim-majority due to this influx, leading to cultural tensions as Hindus and tribal communities feel outnumbered. Many immigrants to India are reportedly attracted to Islamist organizations and become radicalized. Consequently, India has consistently supported Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League party to stabilize the country and its borders and promote cultural ties. Through this alliance, India has emphasized a Bangla identity over an Islamist identity, enhancing cultural exchange between Bangladesh and the Indian state of Bengal.

    Pakistan, which lost the war with India and was forced to grant independence to Bangladesh, has never given up on the country. They have attempted to disrupt Bangladesh’s growing ties with India by supporting the anti-Indian Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its leader, Khaleda Zia. While India has promoted a Bangla identity, Pakistan has pushed for an Islamic identity and anti-Indian propaganda. Pakistan also supported Jamaat-e-Islami, an organization advocating for the Islamization of the Indian subcontinent, which has worked to promote Islamic values in Bangladesh. Many accuse the recent riots that led to Sheikh Hasina’s ousting of being influenced by Pakistan-supported Islamic factions. Indian media have reported on these accusations and are investigating whether the riots involved persecution of minorities in Bangladesh.

    India and Pakistan are not the only interested parties in Bangladesh. The United States and the UK, which did not support Bangladesh’s independence and even opposed India for backing it, are also implicated according to some political analysts. Sheikh Hasina has consistently blocked U.S. attempts to acquire St. Martin’s Island, which was reportedly part of a U.S. plan to establish a military base and boost its military dominance in the region. Some believe that the United Kingdom has plans to create a Christian nation in the Indian subcontinent while forming a Muslim nation elsewhere, and sees an opportunity in Bangladesh. Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which have supported Islamist factions in Bangladesh, have helped to bolster the Islamic identity of the country. China, which seeks to reduce India’s dominance in the Bay of Bengal, also disapproves of Hasina’s alignment with India and has therefore been accused of intervening in Bangladesh as well.

    Bangladesh is currently in a transitional phase, and foreign countries are closely watching the situation. Despite previous authoritarian tendencies during Sheikh Hasina’s tenure, Bangladesh has recorded growth and emerged from India’s shadow. It will be interesting to see what Bangladesh will be like after Hasina. The country is now under an interim government led by Younus, who has the support of the West. The upcoming election will be a battleground for various parties with different agendas and foreign influences. If Bangladesh cannot form a strong government, foreign interference will likely continue.

  • What Caused So Much Anti-India Sentiment in the Indian Subcontinent?

    What Caused So Much Anti-India Sentiment in the Indian Subcontinent?

    Bollywood and Indian policymakers dominated the Indian subcontinent until the last decade. The Indian subcontinent, including Islamic countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan, maintained a good relationship with India. Countries like the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Bhutan acted more like India’s satellites. They developed and evolved using India as a model, and India was generous to its neighbors, offering assistance in areas from education, health, to the satellite services. This collaboration led to the formation of SAARC, which was one of the most effective regional bodies.

    The people of these countries shared a strong cultural bond, enjoying the same movies, music, and cricket and admiring stars from each other’s nations. Despite nationalism, there was a sense of fondness and unity. However, in 2024, the scenario has changed dramatically. The union and sentiments that once bound them together are no longer present. Politicians, people, and even artists are expressing hostility toward each other, with social media filled with hate comments. Anti-India factions are ruling in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Maldives, and have gained strength in Sri Lanka and Nepal. Recently, a violent riot in Bangladesh toppled an India-supported government, revealing a clear rise in anti-India sentiment. Now, it seems only Bhutan remains allied with India in the subcontinent. What caused such a split between these countries that once seemed as close as in a Bollywood drama?

    India, as the largest secular democratic republic, was a role model for its fellow South Asian states. Even when they had disputes with India, they admired it. While some Islamist countries and the United States, which was opposed to Russia, propagated against India, people in these countries were fond of India, its secularism, and its culture. Indian Bollywood movies facilitated this cultural exchange significantly. Bollywood films, with their family values and cultural closeness, attracted large audiences in these countries, creating hardcore fans who cherished Bombay dreams. Bollywood produced content that appealed to these audiences and included more artists from Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and other countries, resulting in significant box office collections for Bollywood movies in these regions. At one point, despite border tensions, Pakistan was one of the largest contributors to Bollywood’s box office revenue.

    Cricket was also a unifying factor, as India provided facilities to promote the sport in these countries. Indian cricket and hockey stars were admired across the region. A similar cultural exchange occurred in reverse, with Pakistani musicians and Sri Lankan cricketers becoming big stars in India. Together, they formed a friendly alliance. The wars at the borders and foreign interests did not disturb this friendly environment.

    But things began to change over the last decade, specifically after Narendra Modi and his Hindu nationalist party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), came to power in 2014. The rise of the Hindu nationalist party caused widespread concern in Islamic countries, leading them to question India’s secular image among their own people. Comments from BJP leaders were widely circulated, giving more spotlight to Islamic factions in countries like Pakistan, the Maldives, and Bangladesh. The public in these countries slowly began to fall out of love with India. Economic downturns in these countries were also redirected into India-hatred by local politicians, who blamed India for various problems. Jealousy played a role as well; in the past, everyone seemed to grow together, but now only India was progressing, leading to the perception that India didn’t care about them and was taking away their opportunities and overshadowing them on the global stage.

    The decline of Bollywood also contributed to this cultural divide. As Bollywood started producing more propaganda-based movies instead of the traditional romantic dramas, the films lost their connection with markets in Pakistan and other regions. Meanwhile, the youth, especially Gen Z, began exploring Hollywood and Korean movies instead of Indian content, further weakening cultural ties.

    But political analysts point to another important factor: the influence of social media on a predominantly young population. As social media spaces are heavily utilized by propagandists, minor incidents in distant places, which mainstream media usually neglect, have started to be highlighted and shape the national mood. This has further strained the already deteriorating connections between people and policymakers. Additionally, outsiders with vested interests have begun to exploit the situation. The United States and the United Kingdom have been culturally disseminating anti-India narratives in the surrounding countries, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar are advancing Islamic interests. Meanwhile, China has heavily invested in the region through infrastructure projects that small-income countries cannot afford to repay, pulling them out of India’s sphere of influence. Anti-Indian groups in these nations are taking advantage of this situation by fostering a new and distinct identity that previously did not exist.

    As a result, India is becoming increasingly isolated in the region, posing significant economic and military risks. With satellite countries bound by Chinese debts, they cannot refuse the influx of Chinese products, causing substantial losses for Indian businesses. Furthermore, infrastructure projects in strategic locations around India provide a military advantage for China. It appears that China is now the dominant player in the region with its partners, putting India in a difficult position.

  • Will Bangladesh Become the Next Islamic Republic?

    Will Bangladesh Become the Next Islamic Republic?

    As the nation’s founder Mujibur Rahman’s statues are dismantled and his daughter, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, flees the country, Bangladesh is entering a new era. A new generation has emerged in the country that did not witness Bangladesh’s freedom struggle, has no emotional ties to the freedom fighters or the nationalist Awami League party, and is determined to reject them all. They led the massive protests that resulted in the exit of one of history’s strongest female leaders. Bangladesh is now in a state of anarchy, but the military chief is not seizing the opportunity to establish a military government. Instead, he is engaging in talks with all parties to form a coalition interim government and organize a fresh election.

    However, the Bangladesh that emerges will not be the same as before, even though many connect current events to the massive student protests of the 1990s. Over the past 30 years, the perfect blend of Islam and Bangla, which has shaped Bangladesh’s identity as distinct from Pakistan and the Indian part of Bengal, is shifting. The mix now contains more Islam, and the influence of Bangla culture is diminishing, raising concerns that Bangladesh is entering a new experimental stage of political Islam.

    There are very few examples of democracy in Islamic countries. If it’s not a kingdom or dictatorship, the majority of Islamic countries can’t survive. However, we have seen many examples of Islamic countries where people mobilized and overthrew dictatorships. Eventually, these countries become battlegrounds between different Muslim factions with varying degrees of religious influence. This has been visible in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and many other countries.

    Often, fundamentalist Islamic organizations lead the masses against the dictatorship, citing poor living conditions and the dictator’s lack of commitment to Islam. They promise a better life if people commit to Islamic governance. As a result, people become willing to endure anything, even death, and no dictator can withstand this pressure, leading to the establishment of Islamic governance. Many political analysts believe this pattern is also visible in Bangladesh.

    Bangladesh, a former territory of Pakistan, gained independence with the help of India in 1971. It has always been a battleground between Pakistan-supported Islamism and India-supported Bangla nationalism. The two main political parties in Bangladesh are products of this conflict: the India-backed Awami League, which advocates Bangla nationalism, and the Pakistan-backed Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), which often incorporates more Islamism. Additionally, Jamaat-e-Islami, a Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization that promotes political Islam and seeks to implement Sharia across the Indian subcontinent, is very popular in Bangladesh, despite being banned by Sheikh Hasina. As Hasina’s era ends and people attack Awami League offices, it is clear that Bangladesh is increasingly embracing Islamism.

    The military chief, General Wajed Ur Zaman, has stated that a coalition government is being formed, and Khaleda Zia, the major leader of the BNP, has been freed from her corruption charges. If elections were held now, it is likely that the BNP would gain power. It is expected that the ban on Jamaat-e-Islami will be lifted, allowing them to become more active in mainstream politics. Given the country’s poverty and poor living conditions, Jamaat-e-Islami is likely to become a decisive factor in future elections, promoting the idea of Islamic rule. Additionally, intervention from Pakistan is expected to increase. As Bangladesh loses its Bengali identity and embraces Islamism with stronger ties to Pakistan, the differences between Bangladesh and former Eastern Pakistan may diminish. So, the Islamic Republic of Bangladesh needs to be considered as Bangladesh’s future.

  • Why is the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace pact challenging?

    Why is the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace pact challenging?

    The Armenia-Azerbaijan war ended almost a year ago. Armenia lost the war, and Azerbaijan gained control of the Nagorno-Karabakh territory, a historic Armenian region also claimed by Azerbaijan. The Republic of Artsakh, the entity established by ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, is officially dissolved, but tensions remain high. A peace treaty between the two countries is not yet possible, as this is not merely a political dispute over borders; it is an ethnic clash, and solving it is not easy.

    Coexistence was only possible while they were under the Soviet Union; otherwise, ethnic clashes were common and led to deep-seated resentment. Peace can only be achieved through a formal treaty. Now, Europe and the West are taking a greater interest in resolving the issue, while conflicts of interest among the parties involved in the region persist. Russia supports Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan has strong ties with Turkey, Turkey has historical animosity towards Armenia, Armenia maintains a relationship with Iran, and Iran is an ally of Russia. This complex web of connections complicates the situation.

    At the recent NATO summit in Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken indicated that the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process might be nearing a resolution. However, both Armenia and Azerbaijan are currently adopting a cautious stance, hesitant to show too much eagerness to make concessions. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev were expected to hold direct talks in London during the European Political Community summit, but the meeting did not take place. As anticipated, both sides have accused each other of obstructing the discussion. Their most recent meeting occurred in Berlin in February, mediated by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. This was the first encounter since Azerbaijan’s complete takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023. At that time, the prospects for a peace agreement seemed remote.

    In May, Pashinyan’s government made a significant breakthrough by agreeing to transfer four villages in disputed border areas to Azerbaijan. Since then, both sides have shown interest in finalizing a peace agreement. On July 20, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev stated at a media forum in the Karabakh town of Shusha that up to 90 percent of the draft peace treaty has been settled. However, reaching an agreement on the remaining 10 percent may prove challenging. Azerbaijan’s demands including Karabakh pose challenges for Armenian politicians. 

    One major condition set by Aliyev is Armenia’s formal agreement to dissolve the OSCE Minsk Group, which has traditionally overseen the peace process but has recently been largely ineffective. Aliyev has criticized the Minsk Group for being biased towards Armenia and has claimed that it has been dysfunctional for many months, possibly even for a couple of years.

    The second condition is more difficult: Azerbaijan is demanding that Armenia amend a provision in its constitution’s preamble that identifies Karabakh as part of Armenia. Aliyev has argued that this provision represents a territorial threat to Azerbaijan because it implies the unification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia. This demand for a constitutional amendment could potentially derail the negotiations.

    On July 25, an Armenian Foreign Ministry representative said that the government is preparing a response to Azerbaijan’s demands. Pashinyan has started internal discussions about possible constitutional amendments, leading to speculation that his government might be exploring ways to meet Aliyev’s conditions. Daniel Ioannisyan, a member of the working group on constitutional amendments, noted that any changes are unlikely to be finalized before 2027, and that modifying the preamble’s wording is not currently being considered. Edmon Marukyan, a former ally of Pashinyan and ex-ambassador-at-large of Armenia, said that Armenians are seeking clarity on several unresolved issues, including the process for returning prisoners of war.

    While maintaining a tough stance on the constitutional provision, Aliyev’s administration extended an invitation to Armenia to attend the UN climate conference (COP29), which will be held in Baku in November. An administration representative described the invitation as a gesture of goodwill. Yerevan has not yet announced whether Armenian officials will attend COP29. 

    Countries situated in the small area  between the seas and mountain ranges are struggling to resolve their tensions. The region is drawing the attention of various external parties, which could lead to increased volatility in the future. As a result, resolving ongoing disputes through a peace pact is crucial. Armenia, grappling with both domestic and international challenges, faces extra hurdles in reaching an agreement, with some emotional issues likely to persist across generations.

  • Russia Seems Unhappy with the US Flirting with Armenia

    Russia Seems Unhappy with the US Flirting with Armenia

    Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia continued to control the politics of Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Eastern Europe. They cultivated and protected many authoritarian leaders in these regions and propagated anti-Western views. However, over the last decade, it has become evident that a new generation in these countries, free from Soviet nostalgia, desires better living standards and opportunities similar to those in the West. Consequently, the politics of many of these countries have shifted accordingly.

    Recognizing this change in sentiment, other parties began to seize the opportunity. The European Union has integrated parts of the former Soviet republics in Eastern Europe and is now extending its influence into the Caucasus. Meanwhile, Turkey is growing its presence in Central Asia and the Caucasus, all contributing to the weakening of Russia’s sphere of influence. The United States has played a significant role in altering the mindset of politicians through diplomatic talks, investment plans, and various other initiatives aimed at shaping public sentiment. Together, they have slowly begun to lift the Iron Curtain. 

    Armenia, a long-term ally of Russia with deep religious and political ties, also joined the race and is now looking towards the West. Despite its Russian-linked politics, the public mood in Armenia has shifted considerably, particularly after the loss of the war with Azerbaijan, which resulted in the loss of a significant Armenian territory tied to their heritage. This defeat has fueled anger within the country, with many believing that Russia, which was supposed to protect them, contributed to Azerbaijan’s victory. There is a widespread belief that a wealthier Azerbaijan received more preferential treatment from Russia, and some suspect that Russia betrayed them.

    As a result, Armenia has started cooperating with the United States. The US, a country with a large Armenian diaspora, is making efforts to align Armenia with Western and European partners. This time, the United States does not want to repeat the mistakes made in Ukraine, and as a first step, they are discussing military collaboration.

    A joint military exercise involving a small number of American and Armenian troops is taking place at a base in the suburbs of Yerevan. Naturally, this has sparked a paroxysm of rage in Moscow. The 11-day exercise, dubbed Eagle Partner, began on July 15 and aims to boost interoperability between the US and Armenia during peacekeeping and stability operations. It’s not the number of troops involved that’s drawing attention; It’s the timing and symbolism of the joint exercise. This exercise is a tangible measure of Armenia’s progress in its geopolitical pivot away from Russia.

    According to US Ambassador to Armenia Kristina Kvien, the US and Armenian troops are at the forefront of a crucial and rapidly growing relationship and partnership. Simultaneously, the Armenian media outlet Hetq reported that a resident adviser from the Pentagon will be attached to Armenia’s Ministry of Defense. The adviser’s specific duties and responsibilities have not been publicly disclosed. Additionally, the US and Armenia are actively exploring cooperation on constructing a new nuclear power plant in Armenia. These fascinating and significant developments from both sides highlight a promising and dynamic relationship.

    Regarding Armenia’s rapid embrace of the West, exemplified by the Eagle Partner exercise, the vitriol expressed by Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova was notable. She characterized the presence of American forces in the Caucasus in alarming terms, alleging that the United States and NATO aimed to disrupt the fragile balance in the region and provoke conflict. She also asserted that Western countries are obsessively involving Armenia in various interactions in Transcaucasia.

    Zakharova’s comments indicate that the Kremlin is alarmed by the rapid erosion of its influence in Armenia and is concerned that an expanding US strategic presence in the region could impede the development of the North-South corridor, a developing trade network connecting Russia, Iran, and India. This corridor has been crucial in supporting the Kremlin’s efforts to evade sanctions and its military operations in Ukraine. Moscow may also worry that the US presence in the region will influence other countries and restive regions within Russia, such as Chechnya. Furthermore, if Armenia fully aligns with the West, Russia would face a significant power check from NATO.

    Russia still maintains some levers of influence in Armenia. Yerevan is economically dependent on Russian trade and natural gas supplies, and the Kremlin also maintains a military base in Gyumri that hosts a Russian brigade. However, Armenia recognizes that this is an opportune moment to explore other opportunities, as it doubts Russia’s willingness to support them in the event of a conflict with Azerbaijan or Turkey. Consequently, Armenia is increasingly turning towards the United States, even as it retains ties with Russia. Interestingly, just before Eagle Partner commenced, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan announced that Yerevan would withdraw from the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization. This suggests that the United States is winning Armenia’s heart as Russia becomes increasingly unattractive.

  • North Korean Diplomats Escape to the South, Continuing After an Interval

    North Korean Diplomats Escape to the South, Continuing After an Interval

    North Korea has been reported as a tough place for its officials to live, with many reports and rumors about missing officials who may be imprisoned or executed. If it is difficult for officials, it is even harder for common people. It is common for people from North Korea to escape the regime and flee to South Korea, even though transportation and information exchange between the two Koreas seem almost impossible. North Korea has tried everything to fortify its borders, with tight control over anything going in or out. The country’s athletes and diplomats are under strict surveillance when traveling abroad. But interestingly, Reports of officials refusing to return and attempting to escape have been reported many times. Diplomats stationed in various countries often disconnect from the regime’s radar and flee to South Korea, this was a common occurrence until almost six years ago. However, tighter scrutiny in the selection of diplomats and the closing of loopholes have restricted such defections. But at a time when South and North Korea’s relationship has worsened due to the notorious “Balloon War”,  news has emerged of a senior North Korean diplomat escaping to South Korea. A tool can be used by the South to humiliate North Korea.

    According to reports, a senior North Korean diplomat based in Cuba defected to South Korea in November, becoming the highest-ranking North Korean diplomat to escape to the South since 2016. The diplomat, Ri Il-kyu, who was on a critical foreign mission for Pyongyang, joined North Korea’s foreign ministry in 1999 and received a commendation from North Korean leader Kim Jong-un for successfully negotiating the release of a North Korean ship detained in Panama for carrying arms from Cuba in 2013. Without providing further details, South Korea’s National Intelligence Service confirmed an earlier report by the Chosun Ilbo newspaper. One of Ri Il-kyu’s roles at the embassy was to prevent North Korea’s rival South Korea and old ally Cuba from establishing diplomatic ties, the newspaper reported. In February, the two countries did establish diplomatic relations, which was a significant blow to North Korea.

    Details on North Korean defections often take months to come to light, as defectors need to be cleared by authorities and undergo a course of education about South Korean society and systems. He shared with the newspaper that his decision to defect stemmed from disillusionment with the regime and unfair evaluations of his work. He noted that every North Korean contemplates living in South Korea at least once, driven by disillusionment with the regime and a bleak outlook. He also expressed that North Koreans desire reunification more than South Koreans, believing it to be the only path for their children to have a better future. He mentioned that he flew out of Cuba with his family but did not elaborate further on how he managed the high-risk escape. 

    The difference between South Korea and North Korea is widening. South Korea boasts a large economy, ranked 14th worldwide, with a GDP per capita around $35,000, one of the highest in Asia. Its job market offers many opportunities, and its soft power, through K-pop and K-dramas, is expanding globally. In contrast, North Korea has a nominal GDP per capita of only $900, forty times lower than South Korea, making it one of the poorest countries on the continent. Living conditions, freedom of expression, and other aspects of life are tightly restricted under its communist regime. These factors contribute to North Koreans fleeing to the South. In 2023, 196 North Korean defectors came to Seoul, according to South Korean government data. Most recent defectors, like diplomat Ri, had long lived overseas, human rights activists say.

    South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol said they are committed to providing increased financial support for North Korean defectors and offering tax incentives to companies that employ them at the inaugural North Korean Defectors’ Day ceremony. This commitment is expected to unsettle North Korea, prompting tighter control over its diplomats. However, it is evident that North Korea cannot conceal these changes indefinitely.