From 33% to 8% - The Vanishing Hindus of Bangladesh: An interview with Richard Benkin

Originally published in SindhuNews December 10, 2020.

https://sindhunews.net/opinion-and-histories-sindhu-news-stories-and-information/bangladesh-india-hindus/

This interview of Richard Benkin about Bangladesh and its Hindu population has been conducted and transcribed by Prof. Shonu Nangia. Both Prof. Nangia and Dr Benkin have been nominated as visiting residents at Silchar’s The Northeast India Company in 2019-2020. Details about their residency and participation can be found at www.theneic.com

1.. How did you become interested in Bangladesh?

The simple answer is because someone asked. Quite a few years ago, a journalist there contacted me to ask for help in bringing Bangladeshis unbiased news about Israel. As a result of that contact, we worked together and made real progress—until he was arrested and charged with capital crimes of blasphemy and treason for urging Bangladesh-Israel relations and exposing the rise of radical Islam in Bangladesh. After successfully freeing him, I was able to get into Bangladesh where I heard about the persecution of Hindus. When I returned home, a Hindu whose family had fled to India faxed me and asked me to “please save us.” That’s when I started devoting my life to the Hindus of Bangladesh.

Until 2013, I was barred from entering the country, except the time mentioned above, which had me in Dhaka during the 2007 military coup. Since then, I’m in Bangladesh two or three times a year, thanks in part to the consistent support of Dr. Daniel Pipes and the Middle East Forum who recognize the link between our efforts. Thanks also goes to the Bangladeshi embassy in Washington whose principals always welcome me cordially, and who recently granted me a ten-year, multi-entry visa. They comprise a very professional group who give me hope for eventual resolution of this human rights atrocity.

2. What kind of hostilities, discrimination and violence have Hindus been facing in recent times in Bangladesh?

I scrutinized about 135 anti-Hindu incidents that took place during Bangladesh’s initial COVID lockdown, March 26 through May 30, figuring that if the government enforces social distancing and other restrictions but refuses to enforce them for attacks on Hindus, it would be clear just how committed that government is to eliminating Hindus and Hinduism. I have very strict standards for accepting an allegation, and even using them, I was able to confirm 85 multi-crime incidents specifically targeting Hindus in a 66 day period. In normal times, I might witness incidents myself, which qualifies an incident for inclusion. If I have not, however, which obviously is the case since COVID, I have to confirm the incident with two independent witnesses; additional sources help, too. I also analyze allegations based on my own knowledge of Bangladesh on the ground and general principles of reasonableness, consistency, etc.

The incidents in this study all were serious crimes, including murder, gang rape, Mandir destruction, child abduction, forced conversion, land grabbing, and more. And in all of these cases, the government refused to take any action against the criminals, sending everyone the message that you can commit anti-Hindu atrocities in Bangladesh with impunity.

3. Cities like Lahore, Karachi, and Dhaka were actually Hindu majority in 1947. In East Bengal (today’s Bangladesh) Hindus made up around 33 percent of the population even years after 1947. To quote your own words, “Hindus have gone from a third of the population in 1951, to a fifth in 1971, to between seven and eight percent today.” Why hasn’t the world taken note? Why has there been no outrage, not even in India?

The wall of indifference about this atrocity is formidable in blocking real change. There are several reasons for it. The first is that Bangladesh gained its independence as a “moderate” and “secular” nation, which was in contrast to the nation from which it broke, Pakistan. Even India helped the revolt, people tell me when they assert that Bangladesh is “good” to Hindus. This was so avidly accepted as an article of faith by the international media, human rights industry, diplomatic corps, and others that most of those same groups refuse to challenge it. Doing so would expose the fact that these “experts” were wrong and their mistake has cost millions of lives. For the most part, even overwhelming verified evidence cannot get them to question their cherished assumptions.

Another problem is that unlike China, Iran, Pakistan, and other bad state actors, the Bangladeshi government does not commit the atrocities directly. Rather it enables others to do the dirty work for them by refusing to prosecute or punish these criminals, and being far more likely to arrest the victims, as we saw again recently in Comilla. When we identify atrocities, the Bangladeshis then claim that these things happened outside of their control; and to the shame of the rest of the world, it accepts those lies. That also means that the atrocities in Bangladesh are given less attention than other real atrocities against minorities elsewhere.

The third dimension is ideological. Those who claim the mantel of human rights tend to focus their displeasure on democratic countries like Israel, the United States, and India. Their criticism tends to be uncompromising with an assumption that persecution of minorities in these three countries is endemic—a ridiculous assumption given how minorities have grown and flourished in those countries in clear contrast with the countries that surround them.

Finally, the lack of activism by the Hindu community also suppresses recognition of the problem. This includes most groups that have the temerity to remain silent and yet call themselves “pro-Hindu” or Hindu nationalist. As one US Congressman asked me: “We believe you, Richard, but if the situation is as dire as you say, why don’t we hear from our Hindu constituents about it?” Those four factors getting people and governments to stop anti-Hindu atrocities in Bangladesh an uphill battle that we must keep fighting regardless, until justice is secured.

4. You recently took up the issue of the ethnic cleansing of Bangladesh’s Hindu community with that country’s ambassador to the US. How did that go?

The current ambassador to the United States, Mohammad Ziauddin, assumed his duties in September 2014. His appointment represented a positive break from previous Bangladeshi ambassadors under this government. Ambassador Ziauddin is a professional diplomat with a broad perspective. I had my first meeting with him in July 2016, along with former US Congressman Bob Dold in an antechamber of the House Committee on Ways & Means. Ways & Means initiates all tax and other financial legislation and has jurisdiction over trade; so the significance of our having it there and the fact that Congressman Dold was a member of that powerful committee was not lost on the Ambassador.

During our meeting a fascinating and rare thing took place. During our talk, Ambassador Ziauddin admitted to Congressman Dold and me that, yes, Hindus are facing persecution in Bangladesh, but he added that the country is incapable of fixing the problem. Dold then said that we can help them fix it and offered that help. I have spent a lot of time meeting with high Bangladesh officials, and it is rare to hear the sort of honesty on this issue that came from Ambassador Ziauddin. To no one’s surprise, however, after this became known in Dhaka, the ambassador was “convinced” to change his tune, as he put it, “after further research.” So that meeting went very well, the ambassador’s retraction didn’t fool anyone on Capitol Hill. Since that time, the group at that Washington embassy has been cooperative, cordial, and professional with me; although officials in Dhaka generally respond to me with angry denials and blanket claims of Bangladesh being “a land of communal harmony.” Fortunately, privately and out of public view, several have told me a very different tale but fear reprisals if their admissions are ever discovered.

5. What effective measures can the Bangladesh government take to protect the Hindu population in Bangladesh from Islamist attacks and violence? Where has it failed?

The most effective measure is a simple one: apply the rule of law consistently and equally to all citizens; and the fact that no Bangladeshi government has done that is their greatest failure. Several international legal groups have emphasized that the rule of law is dead in Bangladesh; that is, you cannot look at anything on the books or in the constitution if you want to know what is happening to Bangladesh’s Hindus. Remember, the Bangladeshi government for the most part does not itself carry out the atrocities. Rather it enables them by refusing to prosecute and punish criminals who commit crimes against Hindus and other minorities. In other words, when it comes to Hindus, the rule of law is non-existent. While simple, however, this solution requires real commitment from the Bangladeshi government because the injustices it allows occur all over the country and every day. Any Bangladeshi official who knowingly allows anti-Hindu atrocities to occur without rigorous prosecution and punishment of all involved, must be prosecuted as an accessory to the crimes. And prosecution must include the influential and powerful people who fund and organize the attacks, not just the small fry who engage in them for personal gain. For it to work, that process must start with Sheikh Hasina or whoever is Prime Minister and cannot be overlooked no matter who the guilty parties are.

The government also must stop the atrocities it does carry out itself. One is in the maintenance and application of blasphemy laws, for which Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League have given full-throated support. Blasphemy laws must be repealed entirely and immediately. Punishing people for their words is contrary to the basic principles of a free country and of the Bangladeshi constitution as well. The other is arresting Hindus who are accused—almost always without evidence—of making anti-Muslim statements on social media. This is another way to use the law as an agent of oppression. All of these things together would send a signal to human rights abusers and the rest of the world that Bangladesh is serious about being a democracy; to do less sends the opposite message to the same people.

6. India and Bangladesh currently have very good relations. Under Sheikh Hasina, Bangladesh has been a friendly neighbor and a reliable economic and geopolitical partner for India. What can India do to help Bangladesh protect the Hindu minority there without triggering an Islamist backlash against Sheikh Hasina’s elected government which is often accused by the opposition BNP and Islamist groups of being pro-Hindu and too friendly towards India?

First of all, I think the question is premised incorrectly, with the false assumption that somehow the Awami League is better for Hindus than the BNP. Look at the use of the Vested Property Act to seize Hindu land; look at the number of severe attacks on Hindus; and you will see that, if anything, it’s worse now under Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League. If we fear a backlash and remain timid, with the false belief that the Awami League will lift a finger to save Hindus; then we are part of the problem, and Bangladesh’s Hindus will suffer for it.             

Now let’s ask this question: Which country benefits more from good India-Bangladesh relations? We know it’s not India. India is enabling Bangladesh’s water supply, which it can change if its cooperation also enables anti-Hindu persecution. India, if it had the will, wanted to could undercut Bangladesh in garment exports, which would severely cripple Bangladesh’s economy. Sheikh Hasina should send Narendra Modi a bouquet of flowers every day to thank him for not doing these things that it can. So, it is cowardly to talk about the good relations, and use that as an excuse for not acting to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Bangladesh’s Hindus.

7. What is the moral responsibility of India and the Modi Government towards Bangladesh’s Hindus? How can Indians be educated about this issue?

Let me start this way. What do you think Israel does when there is antisemitism? It does a lot of things in the background to use its power, but something it does very publicly is that it screams bloody murder. How much has India publicly accused Bangladesh of its attack on Hindus? In fact, I can tell you that Bangladeshi leaders will respond to a strong statement and action by India. Why hasn’t it happened? There was no stomach even to whisper an objection under the previous regime, however, I continue to wait for the current regime to take real action.

Having said that there is one significant action by the Modi government that could signal the beginning of a new Indian policy toward Bangladesh. That’s NRC/CAA. By including Bangladesh, it is the first time an Indian government has publicly acknowledged that Hindus face massive persecution in Bangladesh, and that’s a great thing. Beyond that, it needs to use its geopolitical heft and make a big thing about this everywhere: at the UN, with the United States, at every international forum, etc. If Bangladesh ignores that, India should take specific and severe action, such as seizing garment markets where Bangladesh holds sway, charging for allowing water to flow to Bangladesh from Indian rivers, etc. Whatever the specific action, India needs to take it as a core element of its national policy and international relations. PM Modi needs to tell PM Sheikh Hasina that he is holding her government responsible for what happens and will take the appropriate action if it does not stop.

As to your second question, we have to ask: Educate about what? Because I doubt that there are too many people in India who do not know that Hindus are persecuted in Bangladesh. In 2009, during the election, I met with BJP candidate L K Advani Ji and talked about this. His response was that the people of India must be informed about it; but neither he nor his supporters ever did; nor did anyone else, including groups that call themselves Hindutua, Hindu nationalist, or pro-Hindu. Shame!

8. What about forced religious conversions? Is that still an issue?

It remains a very serious issue. We encounter it regularly in cities and villages. Bangladesh is a country where forcible conversion to Islam is not a crime and will not be prosecuted. Yet, you can kill someone who has converted from Islam without being prosecuted. People will praise you for it and the government won’t even say that such murders are wrong, let alone take action about it.

There is at least one thing that the Hindu community can do. Many of the female victims, once raped and forcibly converted, believe with good cause that they will not be accepted back into their communities; that they will be looked at as if there is something wrong with them now. That’s terrible, and so many victims end up staying with their captors, remaining Muslims, because they have no other options.

If the Hindus communities, especially in villages where this problem is more severe, would make it clear that these women are victims and deserve nothing but support—and that they will be accepted as full and whole members of their Hindu communities; more women will flee from their captors and return to Hinduism and freedom.

9. What can concerned people in India do to help safeguard the human rights of the Hindus in Bangladesh and prevent thecycles of violence against them? Can everything be left to the government there?

Indians have to stop pretending. If Bangladesh’s persecution of Hindus is obvious to so many people half way around the world, does anyone really think it’s a mystery to people next door in India? I can’t believe that anyone is that stupid. There are several things Indians can do. First, since India is a democracy, citizens need to tell people running for office that the only way to get their vote is to take serious action in this matter and never to ignore it. Then, those same citizens have to make good on that and vote only for people who take the matter with the seriousness needed. And as citizens of a free country, they have no less right and obligation to demonstrate than did those Indians who protested the NRC/CAA in Shaheen Bagh.

Second, Indians need to do the same with media; that is, tell them you will not patronize those media who do not highlight this issue, who pretend nothing bad is happening, or who throw out a token article once in a while so they can say they’re doing something. And tell everyone you know to do the same, especially big media advertisers and the decision makers among them.

Third, Indians have to stop cooperating with Bangladesh so long as it is a human rights abuser. Don’t buy their products. Never, no matter what the excuse. Don’t engage in trade or commerce with Bangladesh until this stops. Lobby your governments (states and the center) to be very vocal about this, take specific actions, and make clear why. We should hope that Indian citizens, regardless of their religion or politics, would be equally involved in this effort, just as Hindus protested with Muslims in Shaheen Bagh. Don’t let any other Indians claim that they defend human rights as long as they turn their backs on the Hindus in Bangladesh. Challenge them; don’t let them get away with it!

10. Is the Islamization of Bangladesh a fait accompli, a done deal? Or is the process still unfolding? Can it be rolled back?

The word, Islamization, is problematic. Yes, Bangladesh is a Muslim-majority country with Islam as the official state religion that begins its constitution with the word Bismillah. While we cannot pretend that is not the case, we also must understand that the problem facing Bangladeshis is not Islam per se. That is a matter of faith; by itself, something personal. The problem is radical Islam or Islamists, who have gained a serious foothold in almost every major social institution in Bangladesh.That radicalization can be rolled back only if people care enough to do something and not just gripe about it.

Radical Islamists are being defeated all over the world and are squeezed into a few small pockets. World leaders have to tell Bangladesh that it has three choices: (1) It stops Islamists; (2) It asks other nations to help it stop Islamists, then together they stop Islamists; (3) The international community will take its own actions to stop Islamists. That is, it can be rolled back, but the rest of the world has to stop letting the Bangladeshi government treat Islamists as just another vote bank.

*Bio: Richard Benkin is an American author, human rights activist and a sought-after writer and speaker.  His book, “A Quiet Case of Ethnic Cleansing: The Murder of Bangladesh’s Hindus,” provides verified evidence of anti-Hindu atrocities in Bangladesh, the government’s complicity in them, and the rest of the world’s deliberate silence about it. He has been called a “one-man army” for his human rights work which include efforts such as helping free a Muslim journalist who was imprisoned and tortured for writing favorably about Israel, helping people escape terrorist violence, arranging armed protection for a Hindu temple under attack, and more. He is one of the foremost fighters upholding the cause of Bangladesh’s Hindus, helping to get a reluctant world to recognize the tragedy. In 2016, he confronted the Bangladeshi government with evidence of the crimes, got it to admit culpability, and is working with both Washington and Dhaka to resolve the matter. He travels to affected hotspots to comfort victims, confront miscreants–including government officials, and gather evidence of human rights abuses. He has given briefings to the US State Department and influential members of government on Capitol Hill and has had extended discussions with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He recently gave addresses in both India and Bangladesh on human rights, geopolitical dynamics, and the actions of major powers.

He also works closely with Pashtun, Baloch, and Sindhi activists to verify and make known the human rights atrocities by the Pakistan government against them and shares findings with the US State Department. In 2019, he and a group of Pashtun activists visited Buchenwald concentration camp to stand together for justice.  In “What is Moderate Islam,” he brings together Jewish, Hindu, and Muslim voices to help end non-productive and inaccurate polar thinking that either calls all Muslims jihadis or refuses to critiquepolitical Islam.  Dr. Benkin holds a doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania, has held a number of faculty and business positions, is on a number of boards, and regularly serves as an expert witness in U.S. asylum cases involving South Asian refugees.

Bangladesh: “A rose by any other name is still blasphemy.”

Written statement to US Commission on Religious Freedom Virtual Hearing on Blasphemy Laws and the Violation of International Religious Freedom Wednesday, December 9, 2020

https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Statement%20by%20Dr.%20Richard%20Benkin.pdf

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

While few people champion an unrestricted right to free of expression, fewer still stand behind the use of state power to protect a citizen’s right from being offended by another’s words. In the United States, for instance, a country regarded by many correctly or not as a “Christian” nation, people freely produce products insulting to many Christians, all protected, not criminalized by the government. A notorious example was a painting of the Virgin Mary with elephant dung in a 1999 Brooklyn Museum exhibit. Attempts to ban it or sanction the museum failed, and a man who later defaced the work to redress what he considered an anti-Christian slur was convicted of criminal mischief for it. Laws that criminalize free expression as blasphemy are incompatible with free societies, and nations that only pose as such often continue persecution for blasphemy in disguise. In Bangladesh, the government hides behind high sounding words in a toothless constitution while sanctioning blasphemy in other guises. The use of blasphemy charges has become a major element of an oppressive social control in a country that hardly resembles the nation described in its constitution or by the nation’s father, Sheikh Mujibar Rahman.

I have been involved in two blasphemy cases there. The first was brought against a journalist for reporting on the rise of radical Islamism in Bangladesh and for suggesting that the nation recognize Israel. Actions since by many Muslim majority nations have shown that neither is contrary to Islam or blasphemous. The second was brought against an author for a book he wrote in a foreign country and which the Bangladeshi government had banned as blasphemous eight years before the charges were brought. The author, Salam Azad, claimed that the charges were retaliation for his exposing the illicit seizure of Hindu land by a senior official of the ruling Awami League. In both cases, the government was forced to quietly resolve the charges when they became known outside of the country. And that’s the key point: blasphemy laws are recognized as antidemocratic. The ruse enables Bangladesh to claim say it has no formal blasphemy law while still criminalizing free speech as blasphemy nonetheless.

Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in 2013 very publicly refused radical calls for a new blasphemy law with draconian penalties, which would have become Section 295B of the Bangladeshi penal code. She did not, however, do anything about Section 295A, which according to a 2018 US State Department (State) report, criminalizes “statements or acts made with a ‘deliberate and malicious’ intent to insult religious sentiments.”

Moreover, the provision remains vague, and according to State, “the code does not further define this prohibited intent [and] the courts have interpreted it to include insulting the Prophet Muhammad….The law applies similar restrictions to online publications. While there is no specific blasphemy law, authorities use the penal code as well as a section of the Information and Communication Technology Act to charge individuals. [Emphasis mine.] The Digital Security Act, passed by parliament in September, criminalizes publication or broadcast of ‘any information that hurts religious values or sentiments.’” Do not be deceived: this amounts to blasphemy laws dressed up in new clothing. And it gets worse. All it takes is just one individual claiming to be offended in order to bring a case, which is what happened in the above noted prosecution of author Salam Azad. In that case, a self-described “Muslim activist” claimed Azad’s book, Bhanga Math (Broken Temple) “contained slanderous remarks against the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and Islam.” Azad faced prosecution for it and multiple disabilities even though his book was banned in Bangladesh and never appeared there. So, not only is the law flawed in its conception; its implementation is flawed as well. Blasphemous actions are never defined but remain vague enough to include just about anything that one person might decide to find offensive, as it takes only one aggrieved individual to bring the entire state apparatus down on the accused.

Blasphemy laws in Bangladesh also exist in Section 99(a-f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure that allows "the government [to] confiscate all copies of a newspaper if it publishes anything subversive of the state or provoking an uprising or anything that creates enmity and hatred among the citizens or denigrates religious beliefs. [Emphasis mine.]" Section 144 also lets the government prevent a journalist from going to his or her work place for the same alleged offenses.

Blasphemy laws are bad enough in theory, but their real impact is much worse. State and others frequently referenced the use of Bangladesh’s 2018 Digital Security Act as a de facto blasphemy law. Between April 8 and May 15, 2020, a mere 38-day period, at least twelve different cases were brought by the Bangladeshi government against Hindus who were accused of violating that Act by insulting religious sentiments. Prosecution and incarceration were allowed based only on rumor, a single allegation with no attempt at verification, and other unsubstantiated evidence. Before their arrest, these minorities were attacked and otherwise brutalized, but police never arrested known culprits who were witnessed committing assault, arson, robbery, and other criminal actions. Instead, they arrested and held the minority victims under the Digital Security Act for offending the criminals’ religious sentiments! The incidents also involved indiscriminate attacks on the entire Hindu community with, again, the minority victims being the only people arrested.

Blasphemy laws are retrograde enough, however, when they are coupled with a favored and official state religion as they are in Bangladesh, the laws are applied in a discriminatory manner as well. For instance, while the government is quick to prosecute those accused of offending followers of the official state religion; they refrain from doing so when other religions are defamed. For instance, during the same 38-day period referenced above when the government aggressively prosecuted Hindus for blasphemy, there were 15 incidents of Hindu temples being desecrated or destroyed, along with other acts of anti-Hindu religious desecration; and even when victims complained and the perpetrators were known, the government refused to prosecute.

Further, in Bangladesh, any discussion of blasphemy laws is subordinated to political considerations. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina reaffirmed this warped sense of priorities during open discussions with radical Islamists in exchange for the latter’s political support; something that many Bangladeshis call her “strategic compromise” with the terrorist groups. Since then, as she promised, there has been no consideration of repealing these ersatz blasphemy laws or challenging their bigoted implementation under her party’s rule.

People who care about human rights, freedom of religion and belief, and even basic standards of decency, must recognize the surreptitious transformation of blasphemy laws. As more and more countries find such laws anti-democratic and retrograde; blasphemy’s proponents will attempt to hide them in other language that, as we see in Bangladesh, continue to give blasphemy charges the force of law and the approval and connivance of the government. Don’t be fooled by words without action.

Richard Benkin's Speech to IRF Side Event

By Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Delivered November 20, 2020.

INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ROUNDTABLE SIDE EVENT ON BANGLADESH

For decades, Bangladesh has gotten away with atrocities against Hindus and other minorities in an effort to rid the land of non-Muslims first, and ultimately those Muslims who do not practice their faith in a way acceptable to the government and its radical allies. If we do not stop enabling this, it will mean the end of Hindus in Bangladesh, and signal radicals everywhere that we will not oppose their ethnic cleansing anywhere.

 Bangladesh’s ability to engage in ethnic cleansing without facing sanction or even approbation for it represents a dismal failure of those nations and organizations that consider themselves to be the defenders of human rights. That must stop of we will be like those “good Europeans” who closed their shutters so they wouldn’t have to see their Jewish neighbors being taken to Nazi concentration camps.

 Five major factors keep up this cowardice:

 1.      Governments, international media and pundits, the human rights industry, and others saw Bangladesh as a new kind of Muslim nation when it rebelled from Pakistan in 1971: democratic and moderate, with leaders who guaranteed minority rights. Of course, those elements were true on paper only, and those experts are committed to maintaining the narrative or be forced to admit how “un-expert” they are.

2.      Unlike Pakistan, China, and others, Bangladesh does not do it themselves, but rather empower even reward others and refuse to prosecute these crimes against Hindus. Those experts seem incapable of making this conceptual leap (did I say leap, make that conceptual baby steps), and allow the Bangladeshis to believe they can fool us.

3.      The third is ideological: an obsessive focus on India and other democracies where minorities flourish despite challenges, where the law is actually implemented; to the exclusion of real atrocities in Bangladesh and other South Asian countries.

4.      People who continue to act against the fact by pretending that the Awami League is any better in this regard than the BNP. It is not, and Professor Abul Barkat, mentioned earlier demonstrated that both are equally guilty of stealing Hindu land based on the Vested Property Act. If anything, it is worse under Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League.

5.      The lack of activism by most Hindus. As one US Congressman asked me: “If the situation is so dire, why don’t we hear from our Hindu constituents about it?”

And one more obstacle to justice: people who believe that words are an adequate substitute for action.

So, how do we change this?

First, understand that the Bangladeshi government will never do the right thing simply because it is the right thing; to assume otherwise is naïve. But it will do the right thing if we make it in its interest to do so, or more to the point, we make it contrary to its interests not to do the right thing.

While Bangladeshis are rightly proud of their economic success, graduating from the category of least developed countries, their economy remains inordinately dependent on one thing—garment exports—and we hold the key because Americans are their best customers. No retailer wants to be seen by the public as supporting ethnic cleansing, and while purchase decisions are non-governmental, the US government has the moral duty to publicize Bangladesh’s complicity in the murder of millions, especially since they already have the data. They just need to place justice ahead of politics and prestige. I appreciate the presence of State Department and USCIRF today. Unfortunately, both USCIRF and the State Department are supposed to highlight these things but both have been incomprehensibly timid in forcing Bangladesh to face the consequences of its action. 

Additionally, I refer to the interfaith letter just sent to our ambassador in Dhaka, with Senate and House copies, to defend human rights attorney, Rabindra Ghosh, who has been beaten again for representing his minority client; trying to get simple due process. I want my government—the government and country I love, the country and government with which I am associated—to take the appropriate action and not ignore this crime as it has too frequently in the past. Let the Bangladeshis know their best customers are having doubts about their integrity so they act to protect their interests. That would be a good start—securing justice in one case and initiating a new era in stopping the greater injustice.

After that, it’s up to the rest of us to let retailers like Walmart know that it is supporting murder and that we won’t. Not a boycott, but moral decisions made by informed consumers. How many people here, concerned though you might be, are wearing garments with the label, “Made in Bangladesh.” By not doing that, you can make a difference that will save lives!

It’s no coincidence that today is the 75th anniversary of the Nuremburg Trials of Nazi war criminals. Let’s see if our government can be true to its lessons by doing at least this much.

 Thank you.

Less than three weeks away US elections still unclear

By Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Originally published in the Daily Asian Age (Dhaka), October 18, 2020.

https://dailyasianage.com/news/244737/less-than-three-weeks-away-us-elections-still-unclear

My 17 September Daily Asian Age article on the state of the US elections emphasized the still uncertain outcome. A little less than a month later, they're still not clear, but some definite trends appear to be emerging. Although, as I noted in my last article, polls have been notoriously inaccurate in measuring President Donald Trump's support;

many commentators see the race so clearly tilted in favor of former Vice President Joe Biden that they believe the gap is too large for the President to close it in the time remaining. Since 2016 pre-election measures and predictions almost uniformly predicted a Hillary Clinton win, many wonder if we are seeing the same "Trump effect" in 2020. The Presidential contest, however, is not the only one this year, and this article looks at races for the United States Senate.

The United States Constitution provides for three co-equal branches of government that are to act as "checks and balances" on one another provide layers of protection against autocracy. The Executive Branch is comprised of the President, Cabinet Members, and agencies under their direction; its function is to enforce the law. The Legislative Branch, is a bi-cameral or two chamber body, the Senate and the House of Representatives; its function is to pass legislation or make the law.

The Judicial Branch contains the court system, sitting on top of which is the nine-member Supreme Court; its function is to interpret the law and at times rule that actions of either of the other two branches are null and void because they are contrary to the US Constitution. The Senate is the "senior body" of the Legislative Branch.

Here's why the Senate races are even more important this year. Getting a law passed in Washington almost always requires that both the House and the Senate pass it and that the President signs it.  Usually, the House and the Senate will pass their own versions of the bill, after which it goes to a "conference committee" that negotiates a final bill, which is then passed by the Senate and House separately before going to the President for his signature. If the President does not agree, he can veto or reject the bill, which then goes back to the legislature where by two-thirds of both the Senate and the House have to pass it to override the President's veto.

I like divided government where by each major party controls at least one of those three bodies. Divided government helps keep one party from imposing its agenda and philosophy on the nation. Divided government also forces the parties to "sell" their programs in the marketplace of ideas to the American people who only periodically give either party control of all three of those bodies.

The last US President whose party controlled both houses of Congress during his entire term was Democrat Jimmie Carter from 1977-1981.It's instructive given that power monopoly, many Americans consider Carter's presidency among the most ineffective. Moreover, he was resoundingly rejected in his re-election bid; and the next two Presidents, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush both Republicans, ruled without their party's control of either the House or Senate during their entire tenures. Republican George W. Bush had a Republican controlled Congress twice, due in part to national unity after the 9/11 attacks.

Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump had it only once each. Right now, Democrats control the House, Republicans the Senate; and President Trump is a Republican. No credible model suggests that Republicans will win control of the House this election; and with the possibility of Republicans losing the White House, Republican control of the Senate could be our only chance for divided government.

Senators can serve for an unlimited number of six year terms, compared to House members whose terms are only two years. On a rotating basis, one third of the Senate is up for re-election every two years. This year, 34 states are voting for a new Senator or to return the current one to office, most of which are not competitive. For instance, in Massachusetts, pollsters predict that Democratic Senator Ed Markey will defeat his Republican challenger, Kevin O'Connor by 34.1 percentage points.

Similarly, in Idaho, Republican Senator Jim Risch is expected to defeat Democrat Paulette Jordan by 21.3 points. After reviewing most major polls, especially those with a track record of accuracy and a lack of political bias, as well as other sources; I feel confident in saying that the outcome eleven of those 34 races appear to be in doubt to small or larger extents.

Senate seats in Arizona. Georgia, Iowa, and North Carolina, all currently held by Republicans, are rated as even or leaning toward the Democrat. (When a pollster says a race is leaning toward one party, it signals a tight race with no clear leader). In general, Arizona has become difficult to peg for either party, and the Senate race is trending toward the Democratic challenger.

I see former astronaut, Mark Kelly, picking up that seat for the Democrats. If President Trump has a strong showing in Arizona, Republican Senator Martha McSally still might eke out a win; but I do not consider that likely. Georgia remains more closely tied to Republicans, and I believe Iowa Republican Senator Joni Ernst retains strong support in this farm state, next door to my own.  Similarly, Michigan is getting tight, but I believe its Democratic history will keep that seat from falling to Republicans. North Carolina is tough to call.

Sexual scandals involving the Democratic challenger have not moved the polls toward Republican Senator Tom Tillis as much as initially expected, and I believe this race will hinge on who carries it in the Presidential contest. If I had to pick a winner, I'd provisionally go with Tillis. Republican held seats in Alaska and Montana, rated as leaning Republican, should remain as they are. Many people are beginning to suggest that South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham-one of the most powerful people in Washington-might be ousted.

I don't think so, but if he is, take it as a sign that Democrats will have a big night. Former Colorado Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper is slightly ahead of incumbent Republican Senator Cory Gardner, and I believe Hickenlooper will grab the seat. Longtime Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins also seems headed for defeat, however she has survived serious challenges before. And, finally, former football coach Tom Tuberville is well on his way to taking back Alabama's Senate seat for Republicans.

Headed into the elections, Republicans held a 53-47 advantage in the Senate but had to defend 22 of the 34 seats decided next month. My current projections would have Democrats picking up Republican seats in Arizona, Colorado, and Maine, and Republicans taking Alabama from the Democrats. That means a net pick up of two seats for Democrats, which would leave the Senate under Republican control, even if former Vice President Joe Biden wins the White House and gives his party the tie-breaker in a 50-50 vote. As I did two years ago, I will re-visit these predictions after the election to see how well I did.
 
The writer is an American scholar and a geopolitical expert.

Only seven weeks away US elections still unclear

By Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Originally published in the Daily Asian Age (Dhaka), September 17, 2020.

https://dailyasianage.com/news/241547/only-seven-weeks-away-us--elections-still-unclear

If you want to understand what's happening with the US Presidential election, you need to know three things before setting out on that journey. The first is that anyone who says they're certain who will win, President Donald Trump or former Vice President Joe Biden, is either delusional or dishonest. The second thing is that almost every statement coming out of the US about who might win and why is colored by a prism of partisanship; so take care before accepting what you are told as fact.

You will notice I said "almost every statement," and this article is designed to fall in that small "almost all" group. The third insight is that even pundits and pollsters, whose job it is to predict elections, have acknowledged that traditional methods for predicting election outcomes have limited value in 2020. As one of those experts put it, "All models are wrong, some are useful, many will be misinterpreted."

Mr. Shoeb Chowdhury's recent Asian Age article did a good job of giving readers specifics about how US elections work; for instance, that the overall popular vote does not determine the winner but electoral votes, based on the popular vote in each state, do; and that determines each candidate's strategy. Of the five states with the most electoral votes, three of them (California, New York, Illinois) are reliably Democrat. So much so, for instance, that in the last election, voting in Illinois ended at 7pm, and the state was called for Hillary Clinton before 7:01; and because of US demographics, Democrats tend to carry them by large numbers.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton became the fourth person to win the popular vote but lose the election because her opponent, Donald Trump, won the majority of electoral votes. But if you remove California from the equation, the largest state in the US, Trump wins the popular vote as well. In other words, it doesn't matter if you win a state by one vote or ten million; the winning candidate's electoral vote total is the same.

The Electoral College (EC) was a compromise reached after the American Revolution (1775-1783) between those who wanted to maintain something akin to England's Parliamentary System, whereby Congress would select the President, and those who wanted a more comprehensive break from the English system and called for direct, popular election. The EC was an acknowledgement that citizens' interests and values are affected by where they live and that the people in different parts of the country have different values and priorities.

That was when the United States was comprised of only 13 states, all running along the eastern seaboard from New Hampshire in the north to Georgia in the south. If the founders recognized that much variation then, imagine the diversity in today's United States of 1/3 billion people in a land mass larger than all but two nations (Russia and Canada). I like the Electoral College because it is a check against the tyranny of the majority. As one US Senator from a rural Midwestern state told me, "We don't want a bunch of people in New York and Los Angeles telling us what to do." His sentiment reflected a streak of independence and self-reliance that is a core American value, and their fear of more intrusive government favored by many citizens in large coastal cities.

Given that, the reality is that most states have little chance of being competitive. Before the election even starts, we can be almost 100 percent certain that 21 states with 163 electoral votes will go to the Republicans, and 14 states plus Washington, DC, will give their 187 electoral votes to the Democrats. That means that 15 states with 188 electoral votes are where the election will be decided: Arizona (11); Colorado (9); Florida (29); Georgia (16); Iowa (6); Michigan (16); Minnesota (10); Nevada (6); New Hampshire (4); New Mexico (5); North Carolina (15); Ohio (18); Pennsylvania (20); Virginia (13); Wisconsin (10). A President needs 270 to be elected, which means Biden needs to 83 votes from that group, Trump 107.

Some of those states, such as Georgia and New Mexico, are less competitive than the others. We should recall, however, that Donald Trump won in 2016 in part because he was able to surprise Democrats in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin and capture their 46 electoral votes. Prior to 2016, the last time Pennsylvania or Michigan went Republican was in 1988, carried by President George H. W. Bush; and Wisconsin had not gone Republican since President Ronald Reagan carried it in 1984. But 2020 is a different year, and Democrats will not be surprised in those three states again.

They are putting a huge effort into capturing votes there, which they did not do in 2016. Biden has maintained small to moderate polling leads in those states, however, momentum has been moving clearly in Trump's direction.Pollsters also are admitting that Trump voters are difficult to poll. As a top Republican finance chairs told me, when asked, Democratic voters tell pollsters for whom they plan to vote, but Trump voters refuse. So pollsters move on to someone else, which skews the numbers.

My original home state is Pennsylvania where I got my political "baptism of fire." Joe Biden was born and raised in the Pennsylvania town of Scranton, and he always has had strong support in the Keystone State. If that support helps return Pennsylvania to the Democrats, Biden will need only 63 of the remaining 168 electoral votes in those so-called swing states. With about seven weeks until the election, it's still a tough call, but I would advise readers to watch Florida and Ohio (47 votes).

If Trump starts pulling ahead in both of those states, he will have a clear path to re-election. With Georgia and Iowa (22) shaping up to be less competitive than originally thought, he'll need to find only 38 more electoral votes out of 119 remaining, and could lose one of the three states that put him over the top in 2016. But that's if he pulls ahead in Ohio and Florida. No Republican has ever been elected President without carrying Ohio and Trump will need both states to win again. Biden could lose both; and with New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Virginia (22) looking more likely to go for him, he'll need 61 of 119 remaining electoral votes. But again, this race is really undecided at this point.

COVID-19 threw the election into disarray. Before the pandemic, Trump appeared headed to an easy win with the economy hitting all-time highs and the country virtually free of unemployment. But the pandemic changed all that, and many people have criticized the way that the Trump Administration handled it. Then came the police murder of George Floyd and general agreement that we had to fix the way our justice system treated people of color.

At that point, things started looking better for the challenger. The US, however, has experienced many periods when citizens identify problems with our democracy, the most notable in recent times being the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and 1970s. With the exception of our Civil War (1861-1865), we have addressed the problems and made our country better with the tools in our Constitution and democratic traditions.

Thus, when many protests turned violent, and Democratic run cities did not crack down on the lawlessness; there was a reaction. Trump emphasized his commitment to law and order, and opinion started moving in his direction again. More recently, people have become aware of the Trump Administration's major foreign policy victories-from peace in the Middle East to putting the brakes on Chinese expansion. While foreign policy generally has less impact on US elections, it remains to be seen if it makes a difference to enough voters in critical EC states.

Make no mistake.This election is about Donald Trump, with Joe Biden being a secondary character in the drama. A recent poll asked voters whether they were voting for their candidate or against his opponent. Eighty-three percent of Trump voters said they were voting for their candidate, as opposed to only 59 percent who said they were voting for Biden. And that's the best way to understand this election. As one Democratic strategist said, dismissing the importance of those numbers, "Democrats hate Trump more than cancer." I expect that was hyperbole, but it made the point that Democrats' anti-Trump vote is as strong as Republicans' pro-Trump vote.

SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, 2004. Going into the 2004 election, President George W. Bush was unpopular with a lot of Americans, in large part, because of the Iraq War. But it seemed to most people that the only message of the campaign against him by Democratic nominee John Kerry was, 'I'm not Bush.' It wasn't enough and Bush was re-elected to a second term. Are we seeing something similar in 2020?

So while the election remains too close to call, we can go into its final weeks with more than how we feel about Donald Trump. Will the momentum in the next several weeks work for him or his opponent?  Let's look again in October.


The writer is an American scholar and a geopolitical analyst.

Why Minorities in Bangladesh—but not India—should be Insecure

Why Minorities in Bangladesh—but not India—should be Insecure[1]

Address to International Webinar on The Question of Human

Security of Minority Communities in India and Bangladesh

Dr. Richard L. Benkin

K D College of Commerce & General Studies

Department of Political Science

Midnapore, West Bengal, India

September 10, 2020

As some of you know, I have been fighting the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Bangladesh for more than a decade and a half, spending about a fifth of all that time in South Asia and bringing the fight to Washington and elsewhere in the United States (US) and Europe. I know South Asia through its people: regardless of their faith, which area where they live, or whether that’s in its large cities or remote villages. I start with this because people too often believe—mistakenly—that we Americans get all our information from the movies and TV, or if we’re really good, from a Google search. But to understand an area and not be vulnerable to false allegations or politicized rants; you can’t do it from Washington or London; and you cannot simply apply your western notions about South Asia to the peoples and cultures there. It doesn’t mean you abandon your principles, but it does mean you know the context in which they make sense.

Today’s topic is human security for minority communities, and we start with the insight that security does not come from international organizations, specific policies or leaders but from a nation’s basic laws and structures that outlast any transitory issues or political incumbents. And in that regard, I have a particular point of view; namely, that only democracy[2] has thus far provided that security, and as Winston Churchill told the House of Commons in the final stages of World War II, “no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of that point.”[3] No dictatorship of the proletariat or popular support for state power grabs in the name of some, fill-in-the-blanks, greater cause can offer the same. Rather those things undermine security precisely because they accept the principle that every element of security can be subordinated to whatever demagogues, elected officials, or so-called social justice warriors define as more important. Even those who believe they are protecting minorities by defining their security in law are actually hurting them by enshrining their position as “the other.” I greatly prefer democracies that have mechanisms for self-correction and change built right into their DNA and whose laws are the same for everyone. And that’s why we struggle. You’re struggling with this in India, and we’re struggling with it here in the United States. But that means that we engage in self-evaluation and self-criticism. If you don’t, you have Bangladesh’s false refrain about it being a place of “communal harmony,” which means they have no thought of changing the terrible situation for Hindus there.

 One of the most influential books I ever read was Democracy and Society in Germany by the late German sociologist Ralf Dahrendorf[4]. Writing in 1965, when people were trying to figure out what caused Germany’s descent into madness between 1933 and 1945, he rejected the usual, superficial explanations and instead sought answers in German historical and structural elements that paved Adolf Hitler’s road to power. Dahrendorf took us beyond bi-polar thinking where one pole dismisses any ties linking the worst of Nazi Germany to elements of German society and history, refusing even to consider them and instead holds “a single man or event responsible for all that happened.” The other pole alleges that what happened was inescapably in the nature of being German.[5] Only if we get away from these two extremes can understand those historical and structural elements, and objectively assess why we should fear or not fear a repeat of the phenomenon and the best course of action. It’s also necessary for us to answer the challenge posed by this webinar without the false prisms of bias and politics.

The problem is at least as bad today as when Dahrendorf wrote; in fact, I wrote a book about that to provide an alternative to such unscientific thinking about Islam; rejecting both polar positions: one that sees “all Muslims as open or closeted jihadis”; the other recoils “from any attempt to link Islam with the scourge of international terror.”[6] Here’s another exanple. Many Americans claim that if President Donald Trump loses the next election, he’ll refuse to leave office. Obviously, Trump inspires strong, emotional reactions, both positive and negative; but strong feelings do not make for good analysis. History is a more reliable guide. Former President Richard Nixon (1969-1974) inspired similarly strong emotions, and his detractors had the same fears as Nixon was scheduled to leave office in disgrace; but the reality is that there were structural barriers preventing that from happening. On the night of Nixon’s resignation, his own Defense Secretary James Schlesinger worked with the Joint Chiefs of Staff[7] to monitor military movement and communication, and to make certain that no one undermined the rule of law in an attempt to keep Nixon in power. Richard Nixon was possibly the US President most addicted to his power, but there is no evidence that he even considered staging a coup. Yet, if we remain mired in emotion, bias, and the sounds of our own echo chamber today, we never learn from history and are left with nothing except how we “feel” about Donald Trump. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi inspires strong positive and negative emotions. Let’s free ourselves from that as we look at the recent mass protests over India’s 2019 National Registry of Citizens/Citizenship Amendment Act (NRC/CAA).

Before we do, you need to know that as a human rights activist, I like NRC/CAA.[8] I like it for a bunch of reasons, but the most important is that NRC/CAA is the first time the Indian government has—publicly and formally—recognized that Hindus face serious persecution in Bangladesh—something I have called “a quiet case of ethnic cleansing” because of the overall silence about atrocities that I’ve seen close up in Bangladesh. It doesn’t declare Bangladesh a “bad” place or impose sanctions for its crimes, but it does put the Bangladeshi government on notice that India will intervene to save lives. Many highly placed Bangladeshis have told me privately that Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is waiting for a word from India before she takes minority persecution seriously in her country seriously. Could NRC/CAA be the first step?

Regardless of our opinions about NRC/CAA, we must acknowledge that Indian Muslims have a strong measure of security. Despite the fiction of an Indian Muslim community under siege and united against Modi, the fact is that with him at the top of the ticket, his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has garnered a greater share of the Muslim vote than it has with any other BJP standard bearer.[9] Moreover, contrary to assumptions about a “Muslim vote bank,” the truth is that more Indian Muslims are voting first as Indians, understanding things the same way as Indians who are not Muslim. That’s a very powerful argument against screeds warning Muslims that so-called Hindu nationalists are trying to de-legitimize them. We are seeing that in India, economics and a person’s politics is a greater determinant of votes than his or her religion.

            Supporting that stance is the fact that Modi’s first term as Prime Minister was free of significant anti-communal agitation as more Indians regardless of religion increasingly saw their well-being in the same context; particularly, with his development agenda and his prior success in Gujarat.[10] Moreover, the NRC/CAA protests in his current term, actually confirm that Muslims can be secure as numerical minorities in democratic India. Why can we say that?

FIRST, Indian Muslims are not alone. The situation did not pit India’s Muslims and Hindus against one another. Sources uniformly report that the NRC/CAA demonstrations contained large numbers of Indian Hindus, some in leadership positions; and that observation did not vary by a source’s substantive position on the issue. The weeks-long protests saw perhaps the most Indian Muslims in the streets since the birth of the Republic, but they were not isolated. If anything, Indian Muslims saw their demonstrations to be in keeping with their Indian citizenship. There could be no greater expression of that than the events in Shaheen Bagh, the most impactful protest site, especially on Republic Day, January 26, 2020. Per actress Swara Bhasker, “Wherever you see, there’s a tricolour waving. Wherever you look, there is India written. India is in Shaheen Bagh’s heart.” And that is exactly what there was. The protesters recognized that no set of laws could make them outcasts in their own country; and that is the SECOND insight. As one local noted, “This is not a communal issue, but it is far bigger than that. We will not tolerate divisive politics….This is a sign of unity that everyone is willing to fight for one another.” said one local resident.[11] The multi-religious nature of the crowd in the streets for the rights of Muslims, the crowd’s strong and public displays of patriotism and celebration of the nation would be almost impossible sights in Pakistan or Bangladesh. No matter how much damage they believed the NRC/CAA would do to Indian Muslims, protestors still felt secure enough to engage in this form of civil disobedience.

            THIRD, the NRC/CAA debate demonstrated the legal mechanisms built into the Indian nation and constitution. I was asked to provide an expert opinion on the matter when one of many suits came before India’s Supreme Court. Although, in the end, the Supreme Court ruled that it would not interfere with the law’s implementation—a ruling also based on the same constitution that allows public protest and enables their non-communal nature—the government has been slow and deliberate in its implementation. Given the problems with implementation in only one state, Assam, I predict, there will be several iterations as it bumps up against different circumstances in different states while providing a safe haven for insecure religious minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan.

This is a measure of security that Bangladeshi Hindus simply do not have. First, Bangladesh has an official state religion. India was established as a parliamentary democracy with no state religion and has fought hard to remain so. Now that’s a core principle because it has a reality in action, not only in sterile words as secularism does in Bangladesh. You want their core principle? We get it from no less an authority than Muhammad Jinnah who told the Indian Muslim League, “Our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religious in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality.[12] The very nature of Pakistan and its successor states today is rooted in the belief that Hindus and Muslims are incapable of having “a common nationality” and that a Muslim’s first loyalty should be to the Muslim Ummah. Pakistan and Bangladesh formalized it by making Islam their official religion. There is no parallel with India.

            Having removed secularism in the 1980s, Bangladesh restored it as a core principle, but with no corresponding change in its unsecular behavior. At the same time, it continued to uphold Islam as the state religion to the chagrin of its 18-20 million non-Muslims; most recently in 2016. My associate, Samendra Nath Goswami, a founder of the Bangladesh Minority Lawyers Association and the Bangladesh International Mediation Society, filed a case with Bangladesh’s High Court challenging the legality of having an official state religion because it is in conflict with being secular. The court rejected the petition without addressing the challenge and upheld the official state religion on March 28, 2016; and that is where things still stand. The first word of the Bangladeshi constitution is Bismillah.[13] India’s constitution begins with “We, the people.” Any nation with an official state religion ipso facto places religious minorities in a disadvantaged position. In 2006, I attended a hearing of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) on the state of religious minorities in Bangladesh.

Throughout the proceedings, people routinely referred to Bangladesh as a “Muslim country,” which is objectively correct.  But when the audience was allowed to offer comments and ask questions, one Bangladeshi Hindu rose and took umbrage at that description, asking USCIRF if they could understand that “every time you hear that, you feel like an outsider in your own country.”  Other Bangladeshi Hindus in the audience strenuously expressed their agreement with that sentiment.[14] It was a message I would hear again and again for years.  Even with constitutional guarantees upholding minority rights, Bangladeshi Hindus have told me overwhelmingly that they are outcasts living in a land that enshrines their alienation.  They also found the concept of guarantees ironic since their governments never enforce them; that if they were an attempt to guarantee anything, it was the government’s own cover for persecuting non-Muslims.  Unfortunately, that duplicitous stratagem has worked to keep Bangladeshi and Pakistani persecution of non-Muslims either off the international radar or conveniently ignored.

            SECOND, is the fact that Bangladeshi Hindus face a level of communal violence inconceivable for Indian Muslims. Jonathan Fox found that states with an official religion are just more repressive than others. They “engage in higher levels of political restrictions and repression against ethnic minorities,” including ethnoreligious minorities like Hindus in Bangladesh, even though they and their Muslim countrymen and women share a Bengali ethnicity.[15] And in fact that is what Bangladeshi have faced consistently for decades. As an example, I scrutinized Bangladesh’s initial COVID lockdown period, March 26 through May 30. I’m very rigorous in validating allegations and eliminated many because they did not pass my own exacting vetting standards, and I am sure many of them happened. Still, I confirmed 85 separate anti-Hindu incidents during that 66 day period; an average of about one and one third multi-crime incidents a day. All of them targeted Hindus explicitly and were enabled by Bangladeshi police and government allowing them to occur with impunity. Had I encountered incidents in which the Bangladeshi police and authorities provided equal access to and protection of the law to the Hindu victims as provided to Muslims; those incidents would not have been included with the other 85; but I did not; which is a major conclusion of that study and this piece: Hindus do not enjoy the rule of law in Bangladesh, which makes their problem a systemic one that renders their lives insecure.

            Almost half the incidents involved criminal assault in addition to any other crimes committed during the incident. Vandalism (not including vandalism of Mandirs) was the next most frequent crime, appearing in about a third of the incidents, as did land grabbing and destruction or vandalism of Hindu temples. About a fifth also involved attacks by bands of armed miscreants against individual targets or entire communities. Other crimes against Hindus included: sexual assault, including gang rape; kidnapping including child abduction; theft or looting; forced conversion; and others. Hindus are victimized by these crimes every day because the criminals are confident that they can escape with their ill-gotten gain and never be prosecuted for their crimes. This is the lesson that all Bangladeshi governments teach their citizens.

            THIRD, unlike Indian Muslims, Bangladeshi Hindus are isolated, not only by the social acceptability of the attacks on them. In 2013, the authoritative Pew Research Center (2013) undertook an exhaustive study of attitudes and beliefs among Muslims in 39 countries worldwide.  In most cases, Bangladeshi Muslims were among the least tolerant, a strong indicator of why Hindus in those countries are justifiably insecure. For instance, more Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims want Sharia to be the official law of the nation than all but five of the nations surveyed; greater percentages than all nations in Europe and Central Asia, all but one sub-Saharan African country, and even more than all Middle Eastern political entities surveyed with the exception of Iraq and the Palestinian territories. They also had among the fewest respondents who believed religions other than Islam lead to heaven; and 69 percent agree that conversion is a religious duty (forcible conversion is a serious problem there). Bangladeshi Muslims were among the least likely to have friends who are not Muslim; only three percent; but among the most likely to justify suicide bombing of civlians. So much for Bangladesh’s ad nauseum “communal harmony” claim.[16]

            So clearly, minorities in the free nation of India are much more secure that minorities in Bangladesh; and in both countries, it has been that way regardless of who happens to be in power at the moment. But I want to skip to the final—irrefutable—bit of evidence: Muslims continue moving from Pakistan and Bangladesh to India, indicating that they feel more secure in India than in either of the other two countries. And in fact India is projected to have the world’s largest Muslim population by 2050—even though they will remain minorities there. Hindus are not moving to Bangladesh. Since the first post-Partition census, in fact, Muslims have gone from 9.8 percent of the Indian population to just under 15 percent today. The Hindu proportion in East Pakistan cum Bangladesh has gone from almost one in three to about one in 15 today.

            Regardless of transitory political figures, India offers all religious communities a sense of security that comes from its democratic tradition, rigorous secularism, tolerance for public protest, their inter-communal character, and India’s refusal to enshrine a state religion that. If anything, Bangladesh is moving further away from these elements of security.


[1] Much data and information in this paper comes from extensive personal interviews and observations in South Asia over two decades, and informants often fear retaliation if they are identified; that is, my ability to secure honest responses from people of all political stripes and social strata depends on informants’ confidence of confidentiality.

[2] I use the term, democracy, as a generic so that it includes, for instance, Democratic Republics like the United States and Parliamentary Democracies like most nations of the British Commonwealth including Bangladesh and India; although the former’s democratic character has been severely compromised.

[3] Longworth, Richard (Ed.). Churchill By Himself: The Definitive Collection of Quotations. (Rosetta Books: NY, 2013), page 100.

[4] Dahrendorf, Ralf. Society and Democracy in Germany. (Doubleday & Company: NY, 1967)

[5]Op. cit., page 25.

[6] Benkin, Richard L. (Ed.). What is Moderate Islam? (Lexington Books: Landham, MD, 2017), page 1.

[7] The heads of all US military branches.

[8] Benkin, Richard L. “Partition's Human Rights Wreckage.” Online address to Netaji Subhash Mahavidyalaya. July 12, 2020. Retrieved from https://richard-benkin.squarespace.com/

[9] “Muslim vote: How BJP trumped Congress.” Economic Times. March 27, 2019. Retrieved from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/elections/lok-sabha/muslim-vote-how-bjp-trumped-congress/articleshow/68592698.cms?from=mdr; Debu C. “How did Muslims Vote?” MyIndia. May 26, 2019. Retrieved from https://www.mapsofindia.com/my-india/politics/how-did-muslims-vote

[10] Benkin, Richard L. “The Left Demonizes India's Modi while his Popularity Soars.” February 7, 2013. American Thinker. Retrieved from http://www.interfaithstrength.com/ModiAT.htm ; “Muslim Leaders Meet PM, Praise Development Focus.” April 13, 2016. NDTV. Retrieved from https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/muslim-delegation-meets-pm-modi-praises-his-welfare-schemes-1395245

[11] Gandhiok, Jasjeev. “Away from Rajpath, Shaheen Bagh ‘celebrates the Republic.’” January 27, 2020. Times of India. Retrieved from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/away-from-rajpath-shaheen-bagh-celebrates-the-republic/articleshow/73647291.cms

[12] Jinnah, Muhammad Ali. Presidential address by Muhammad Ali Jinnah to the Muslim League Lahore, March 1940. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of Pakistan. Retrieved from http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_jinnah_lahore_1940.html

[13] In the name of Allah.

[14] Benkin, Richard L. A Quiet Case of Ethnic Cleansing: The Murder of Bangladesh’s Hindus. (Akshaya Prakashan: New Delhi, 2012), p. 100.

[15] Fox, Jonathan. “State Religious Exclusivity and Human Rights.” Political Studies. Vol. 54, No. 12. January 2008. Pages 928-948.

[16] “The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050.” Pew Research Center Religion and Public Life. April 2, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

Israel-UAE Peace Agreement Signals New Reality for Bangladesh

By Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Originally published in the Daily Asian Age (Dhaka), August 20, 2020.

https://dailyasianage.com/news/238839/israel-uae-peace-agreement-signals--new-reality-for-bangladesh

As most of the world celebrated the historic peace agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), many likely missed something even more historic: the praise or silence from a once anti-Israel Muslim world. Of the 51 Muslim-majority nations, only three (Turkey, Iran, and its client state Qatar) formally condemned it. In fact, more Muslim countries condemned their condemnation.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), for instance, which includes Qatar, decried what it called the “threats” by Iran against the United Arab Emirates for normalizing relations with Israel. When Turkish strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened to withdraw its UAE ambassador; the Emirates’ Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash scoffed at the Turkish leader’s “double standard,” given Turkey’s peace treaty with Israel. Turkey also has a free trade agreement with Israel and imported over $2 billion USD in Israeli goods during the first half of an economically challenged 2020. Even two of the three previously named condemners then, are saying one thing and doing another.

Of course, the Palestinian leadership is beside itself. Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas called it a “betrayal,” though he conveniently avoided mentioning his own government’s extensive work with Israel against Hamas. Palestinians believed that no matter how much they rejected honest negotiations with Israel, Muslim nations would sublimate their own peoples’ interests to those of Ramallah.

Note to Abbas: this is what comes from decades of intransigence and terror, and of more recently angrily rejecting any engagement with the US, an important ally to Israel most Arab nations. You can refuse to recognize Israel but you cannot refuse the consequences of your actions. In fact, with this one deal that included Israel suspending its plans to annex much of the West Bank, the UAE has done more for the Palestinians than has Abbas, with his non-starter maximalist demands and angry propaganda. For decades, Palestinian leaders have attempted to use the Muslim world as leverage for their unyielding demands, but history is taking us all down a different—interfaith—path.

About 85 percent of United Nations (UN) members have diplomatic relations with Israel, one of six UN members without universal recognition; the other five being Armenia, China, Cyprus, and the two Koreas. Two non-UN members, Kosovo and Taiwan, are recognized by far fewer countries than is Israel. Of the 44 Muslim-majority nations with more than a million people, Israel has diplomatic relations with 20: more than 45 percent of those countries that PA leaders assumed would back any of their actions, including terrorism, incitement to hatred, and massive corruption.

Moreover, Bangladesh is one of only nine among the remaining 24 that have no relations with Israel, formal or informal. And even among that nine, Algeria and Iraq have had on again off again Israel contacts; Lebanon, Libya, Syria, and Yemen are without acknowledged governments to continue talks that were once underway. That leaves Bangladesh standing with only Iran and Pakistan. Is that the company in which Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina would like the world to place Bangladesh?

Longtime observers of the Middle East also note that, as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman put it, the “pro-Iran….permanent-struggle-with-Israel camp [is] becoming more isolated and left behind.” I doubt that the Prime Minister wants Bangladesh to be “left behind,” especially as the decades-long process of normalization sees even more Arab and Muslim nations make peace with Israel. Even as this is being written, American and Israeli insiders are predicting that Bahrain and Oman are likely to take the same step soon; and in Africa, expect peace agreements with Sudan and with Morocco, which provides a cautionary tale for Bangladeshi intransigence.

Despite the international euphoria that has greeted the Israel-UAE peace deal, it was as the Begin-Sadat Center noted, an “unpleasant surprise to the Moroccan diplomatic and intelligence community,” which expected Rabat to hold the distinction of being the third regional power to normalize relations with Jerusalem. Unlike Bangladesh, Morocco had been working with Israel for decades. The countries had close defense and security ties that helped Morocco defeat multiple tries to overthrow the government. Tens of thousands of Israelis visit Morocco annually while thousands of Moroccans visit Israel each year. The relations also helped Morocco get US support for its Sahara autonomy plan; and otherwise increase Rabat’s influence in Washington.

More was on the way, but Morocco dithered. It shifted priorities and then deferred to the growing Muslim Brotherhood like group that gained power after the so-called Arab Spring. Not long after that, the growing relations between Israel and Gulf States started moving quickly, as national leaders saw their tremendous advantages. I do not want to be misunderstood. Israel’s military and security aid to Morocco never stopped, and neither did the person-to-person interaction between Israelis and Moroccans. There will be a great cry of joy when Israel and Morocco sign a peace agreement, especially given Morocco’s history and the fact that about ten percent of Israelis are Moroccan Jews or their descendants. But it will not have the impact of the UAE (or other GCC nations). International attention shifted to the Gulf, and that hurt the diplomatic status that Morocco sought for its African and Middle East policies.

Since early in this century, I have engaged with several Bangladeshi leaders about initiating discussions with Israel. The last time was in 2013, when Sheikh Hasina’s political advisor and confidant, HT Imam, invited me to Dhaka where he raised the subject. In keeping with how Israel engages, I made sure any overtures were respectful of Bangladeshi history and sentiments. As Israel has built relations with more and more countries, it has done so recognizing political and other challenges these different governments face. Hence, Israel and the UAE, have been building trade and security relationships for years. For much of that time, relations were built quietly; and at least 15 Muslim-majority countries are at different points on that continuum now. That is why by the time US President Donald Trump announced the UAE-Israel peace agreement, around 200 Israeli companies were already exporting goods to the UAE in the fields of in the fields of medical equipment, telecommunications, national security, and more. No one expects Bangladesh to abandon its principles.

When I first discussed the array of relations possible between Israel and Bangladesh, there was a sense of excitement at the prospect. During informal talks, Israeli officials indicated that they could offer Bangladesh direct help in a number of fields, including medicine and agriculture. The process could enable Bangladeshi Muslims visit holy sites in Israel. Why should misguided policy deprive Bangladeshi Muslims of that which most of their co-religionists can do?

There are other advantages. In 2003, I published an article in the now defunct Bangladesh Observer, in which I said that Bangladesh is uniquely positioned to help parties resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Current Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has built a higher international profile than what existed back then, and she has the ability to raise it further. This effort also will solidify relations with the United States as Bangladesh’s largest customer for readymade garments (a status now in jeopardy as others claim that market). Sheikh Hasina also has done a skillful job of building strong, positive relations with India, and relations with Israel would provide another positive element with that all-important neighbor. And I want to be clear, all of these things—from aid and joint ventures to investments to enhanced cooperation with the US and India—will be done to the advantage of the people of Bangladesh.

There are so many ways to begin. For instance, we once talked about a government sanctioned delegation of Bangladeshi journalists visiting Israel. Additionally, if cyclones, floods, or other natural disasters strike again, Israel has been a leader in helping similar victims in Haiti, Indonesia, Nepal, Japan, and so many other nations. It even offered aid to Iran after its 2017 earthquake and most recently to Lebanon after its massive explosion. As always, I offer my good offices to help with this difficult process.

So, I ask Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, if almost the entire Muslim Ummah recognizes that not engaging with Israel is an obsolete policy; that it hurts their people and does nothing to help the Palestinians; is it time for Bangladesh to explore relations with Israel, as all but the most radical of its fellow Muslim-majority nations have?


The writer is an American scholar and a geopolitical analyst.

A Quiet Case of Ethnic Cleansing – A True Story in a Comic

By Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Originally published July 23, 2020 in SindhuNews: https://sindhunews.net/opinion-and-histories-sindhu-news-stories-and-information/a-quiet-case-of-ethnic-cleansing-a-true-story-in-a-comic/

For a long time, I have wanted to get more people involved in the struggle for justice for Bangladesh's Hindus; using media different from my usual non-fiction books and articles. Earlier this year, I was awarded a residency in Assam in Northeast India. It gave me a chance to know and work with some fantastic students and educators, both Hindu and Muslim. We engaged in passionate discussions, important learning activities, and socialization. I am a better person for it. The group has put together a web site and published a comic I put together with my daughter, comic artist Sarah Benkin, based on actual events I experienced. It has sparked a good deal of interest already. You can see the comic by clicking the “Originally published July ….” line. Thank you, SindhuNews.

The Hindus of Bangladesh: A Quiet Case of Ethnic Cleansing

By Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Address to Bidhan Chandra College Dept of English Rishra, Hooghly District, West Bengal, 16 July 2020

Good morning from the United States. Thank you for giving me a chance to speak to you today. Before we get started, however, I want to provide a context within which you should put anything I say here; and I hope it is a context within which you also put what you do after today’s address. The only thing that matters is what we DO; and do and do and do until the carnage stops! As my late father would have said, “don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back for attending a seminar or for simply shaking your fists in the comfort of your home. The atrocities against Hindus will go away only when people care enough to take strong and sustained action. And I hope today’s talk helps us along.

 

Let’s start with some cold, hard facts. Pakistan’s first census (1951) found Hindus to be about a third of East Pakistan’s population; that is, the number remaining after the massive movement of peoples that accompanied the Partition of India. When East Pakistan became Bangladesh in 1971, they were less than a fifth; 20 years later under a tenth; and reliable estimates put them at about one in 15 today. You don’t have to be Stephen Hawking to figure out that the next number is not going to be higher. Those facts are largely undisputed; the question we have to ask next is “Why?”

 

Bangladeshi officials have tried to get me off the trail of finding that answer with an array of nonsensical excuses. It’s also important for you to know this so you will be prepared—so you will be able to respond quickly and effectively—when they try to get you to forget about these poor people:

 

1.            There’s no problem, Dr. Benkin, because there are more Hindus in Bangladesh today than at the time of Bangladeshi independence.  In terms of raw numbers, that’s true enough. The number of Hindus has grown by 3,000,000 or about 30 percent. Consider, though, that Bangladesh’s total population in 1971 was about 70 million. Today it’s 165 million or about one out of every 47 people on the planet.  At the same time, its Muslim population grew by 92 million or about two and a half times, pretty close to the national growth, and far more than Hindus’ 30 percent increase.  Are we to believe that’s a coincidence?  Fortunately (or unfortunately) we do not have to depend on “belief.”  We have data.

 

The other part of their argument is that any change is due to higher birth rates among Muslims; something their apologists never seem to tire of telling me. Yet, according to Mehtab Karim, a senior research adviser and senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and World Affairs, that assumption about birth rates might have been the prevailing wisdom in the 1960s and 1970s, but Bangladeshi Muslim birth rates have been falling since then. Attributing the slow death of Hinduism in Bangladesh to Muslim birth rates is merely an attempt to excuse ethnic cleansing by appealing to bias contrary to fact.

 

Throughout that entire period, however, we have seen an unbroken string of anti-Hindu atrocities that continue to this day with the tacit approval of successive Bangladeshi governments, including the current one. This is well-documented in a lot of places, including in my 2012 book, A Quiet Case of Ethnic Cleansing: the Murder of Bangladesh’s Hindus, which you can get from a number of sources, including the publisher, Akshaya Prakashan, Amazon, and my web site. The web site also has a great many articles that also document this “quiet case of ethnic cleansing.” It is that human rights tragedy, and not some presumed disparity in birth rates, that accounts for the destruction of Hinduism in Bangladesh.

 

2.            I’ve had many Bangladeshi officials react with anger, denying that any problem exists, and referring to “guarantees” in their constitution.  Yet, they cannot tell me why reality so tragically diverges from their constitution’s flowery words. This happened as recently at this year [2020] when one official said he considers opposing these accusations as “the duties of a patriot.” That’s a strong motivation, and I told him I appreciate his love of country—even respect it.  As patriot myself who never shrinks from standing up for the United States, however, I expect patriots to listen to our opponents and adjust our beliefs if facts dictate it. True love of country should make us strive continuously to keep improving, developing. The most memorable of these many incidents was a very public and loud argument I had in 2013 with the man who then was Bangladesh’s Home Minister, Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir.

 

The minister tried to patronize me and do nothing, acting as if my being in his divine presence was all I needed; as if sipping tea with him was the reason why I regularly disrupt my life and come to a land so far and so different from my own. Of course, it did not have the effect he wanted, at which time he got very angry and launched in a ‘who-the-hell-are-you’ rant, and tried to seize the agenda by criticizing the US for a number of real and imagined sins, from the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans to mass shootings to lower union membership. I asked him if he seriously was equating low union membership with ethnic cleansing and thanked him for proving my point, by offering no rebuttal to the substance of my accusations.

 

He finally said something I hear from internet moles and apologists, that all Bangladeshis “live in communal harmony,” but added I should send him any evidence to the contrary if I encounter it, and he would “take care of it personally.” Was he actually serious with that? My response, and this is an exact quote: “You mean to tell me that here you are the Home Minister of the country and you’re dependent on some guy from Chicago to bring you evidence?  I think you have much bigger problems than we thought.” That night, after meeting with a Bangladeshi Hindu family whose daughter had been abducted with police involvement, I nonetheless did as he asked and sent him pages of documentation. He did nothing. Shame on me for acting as if he was seriously concerned about all citizens of Bangladesh!

 

3.            Here’s another one:  The number of Hindus have dropped because of “voluntary” emigration.  Notice how they keep changing their story: first, there’s no problem, then the problem is due to something other than what caused it. That’s a very obvious “tell” when someone’s lying, and worse in this case, knows the truth. That’s tantamount to saying that a person running away from a hungry tiger is doing so voluntarily.  Yes, the person decided to run, but only because remaining in place—no matter how much they wanted to remain—was filled with imminent danger.  Several years ago, I interviewed a Hindu family in Northern Bengal only 22 days after they fled Bangladesh with little more than the clothes on their backs. Neighbors invaded their farm, murdered an uncle, beat the father, and gang raped the 14-year-old daughter raped. No one drove them to the border and physically expelled them. Did they leave voluntarily?  Even now, still, influential people and their minions with track records of violence continue to threaten Bangladeshi Hindus with death or “dire consequences” if they do not leave the country. If they decide to leave rather than risk being killed, often “advised” to do so by police, will their flight be voluntarily? And while it sounds silly to ask that, not doing so allows the guilty to blame the victims by calling their flight “voluntary.”

 

4.            One of their newer excuses is that anything we document plain old criminal activity and nothing directed as Hindus per se. ‘The majority community faces the same thing,’ they say. This happens when I address anti-Hindu actions on the spot, whether in cities, towns, or villages.  It’s a stupid excuse easily dismissed when I asked them to tell me the last time Hindus destroyed a mosque or when Hindus forcibly converted Muslims. Or this 2019 incident. I was speaking at Dhaka University when I got phone call and had to offer my apologies and leave immediately with my friend, colleague, and human rights giant, Rabindra Ghosh who founded the Bangladesh Minority Watch. A Hindu family had been terrorized for four and a half straight hours in broad daylight (between about 11am and 3:30pm). And I want to emphasize that this happened in the capital, Dhaka, and not some remote location hours away from the police.

 

When we arrived, their home and temple were in shambles. Family members—who fled for their lives when the attackers started overwhelming them—were on the floor picking through the wreckage trying to salvage any of their possessions or religious artifacts. Hearing that we were on our way, the police made a show of their presence. More to the point, we asked them what they were doing about this, and their response was—yep, you guessed it—that it was a “simple crime” that the majority community faces, too. I responded as noted above, then turned around as I was leaving, and said, “One more thing. I noticed two members of your intelligence service at the scene [something they figured I wouldn’t recognize]. Tell me, is your policing so bad or your government so oppressive that you can’t even solve ‘simple crimes’ yourself?” They admitted that intelligence does not come for every simple crime, and told us they were only saying what they were directed to say (of course adding ‘please don’t tell anyone’).

 

5.            But my favorite idiocy award goes to one Bangladeshi ambassador to the US who once tried to “calm me down” by saying that Hindus do not have any problems in Bangladesh. “They cannot find suitable matches for their children [in Bangladesh] so they go to India where there are more Hindus.” I’ve interviewed hundreds of Bangladeshi Hindus refugees in India and not one told me that they left Bangladesh to find a marriage partner for their children.

 

Ethnic Cleansing during Lockdown

 

The sad history of Hindus in Bangladesh has been rehashed again and again. The litany of atrocities should not be news to any of us. Recently, however, I wanted to see just how deeply-rooted this “quiet case of ethnic cleansing” is in Bangladesh by looking at anti-Hindu incidents during Bangladesh’s initial COVID-19 lockdown from 23 March through 30 May. I spent much of the spring gathering data from various sources inside Bangladesh, and most of this month vetting them. I figured that if people would risk infection and possible death to attack Hindus and Hinduism, they’re probably pretty rabid about it, certainly committed to it. I also figured that if Sheikh Hasina’s government was passive about it, even during this time when their actions might threaten the health of all Bangladeshis, it’s probably equally committed to letting it happen.  And I want to be clear that these incidents took place throughout the country, in Dhaka and other major cities, as well as small towns and villages. Search as you might, however, there is not a single example of the government condemning these actions or a single person being warned not to repeat them or face sanctions if they did. So, how strong is their commitment to ethnic cleansing? Before I proceed with what I found, know that I have not finished third stage vetting of some, so to an extent findings are subject to some change.  The overall trend will remain the same, however, I’ve confirmed enough for that. The vetting might even reveal more crimes against Hindus.

 

The study found 77 anti-Hindu incidents during those 69 days; more than one every day. All of them were specifically anti-Hindu, or they were crimes committed against Hindus because the perpetrators knew they could do so with impunity; and they were incidents in which the government did not take action to save victims or arrest and punish perpetrators, including the well-connected and powerful individuals who fund, plan, and organize them. These 77 incidents involved at least the following: 36 incidents of assault; 31 cases of home invasion; 27 acts of serious vandalism; 22 incidents of land grabbing—a process by which armed assailants invade a Hindu home and seize it, claiming it for themselves with the police and government supporting their illegal occupation of the property; 27 act of religious desecration, including the destruction of temples and deities; 11 acts of robbery; eight death threats; eight incidents of false arrest; three of extortion, and many more attempts at it; and at least three murders, four rapes, two child abductions, three forced conversions; a number of other crimes; and three incidents that can be described only as anti-Hindu pogroms (organized attacks on the entire community with government complicity). All involved Hindus being denied equal protection under the law, something that numerous international jurists have identified as endemic in Bangladesh; and all involved armed perpetrators, often firearms.

 

If this can happen when everyone is supposed to be sheltering in place, imagine what life is like for Hindus in Bangladesh when there are no such restrictions! I still have to complete the third stage vetting of many incidents, which could change some specific numbers up or down, but the message is clear and unequivocal. And because the veracity of information is so terribly important, especially when making such serious allegations or requesting action; I will not include any incident that has not passed specific standards. Obviously, they are confirmed if I witnessed the incident myself, which does not apply in this recent study.  (I left Bangladesh on 27 February and have been confined by our COVID-19 lockdown since about a week after that.) If I did not, they must be confirmed by at least two independent eyewitnesses. And I want to again emphasize that the witnesses must not be independent; I’m not doing this to help anyone further their own agenda.

 

Once I have completed the vetting, I plan to get this information to key Senators and Members of Congress I know and with whom I have discussed this matter already. They are expecting my intervention and some direction on what they can do to use the power of the US government to stop this human rights tragedy, that’s pretty much ignored by much of the world. And why is this a quiet case of ethnic cleansing?

 

1.            Most people pay little attention to events in Bangladesh. It’s a small country with a reputation for natural disasters, poverty, and pleas of helplessness, but few natural resources or geopolitical power.

 

2.            The investment of international elites in maintaining the fiction of Bangladesh as a “moderate” nation; and it would be tough to maintain that moniker for a country that is complicit in the systematic ethnic cleansing of its minorities.

 

3.            The fact that these atrocities are not carried out by the Bangladeshi government, but merely enabled by it, which generally pushes the issues to the back of the human rights line. It’s a lot easier for someone sitting in Chicago, for instance, to see the carnage that occurred in Sri Lanka and Rwanda, to take two of many examples. Or focus on this when the Chinese government is actively persecuting its Uighur Muslims and forcing them into hi-tech concentration camps.

 

4.            The silence and lack of activism from India and the international Hindu community. I recall early on in this struggle when I brought the matter before friends on Capitol Hill, one of them said: “We believe you, Richard; we know you’re not going to bring us anything unless you have done a rigorous job of verifying it. But, tell us, if this is as big a problem as you’re telling us it is, why haven’t we heard about it from our Hindu constituents?” That actually happened, and I remember it clearly because I knew that I had to be convincing even if the community did raise the issue. To be accurate, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), the premier Hindu group in the United States who I’ve worked with in Congress, provides extensive documentation of this quiet case of ethnic cleansing annually. In fact, Samir Kalra, HAF Managing Director, wrote the forward to my book.

 

What Must be Done?

 

It always frustrated me when people came to me complaining about things as they were, but did not offer me solutions. That’s been the case here, but the solutions are as clear as the problem is made muddy.

 

Let’s first talk about India. This is the world’s largest democracy, where there is freedom of expression. I’ve spent one to three months in India every year for the past 13, and I have observed that most restrictions on free speech are generated by individuals internally. The biggest factor is the fear of being thought “impolite” or even worse. The next is a general desire not to offend political leaders; and even if many reserve that only for the side of the political divide they support, others make it general. There are others, but those are the two most impactful. And I find it funny because we can site so many incidents where Indians threw all of that caution to the wind, took bold and successful military steps, and demonstrated a superior ability to get things done. Regardless, this reticence has contributed to India pretending that nothing is happening in Bangladesh; or that the concern of Hindus in East Bengal are not the concerns of Hindus in Punjab, Delhi, or Maharashtra. These observations are only meaningful because, I believe, they have contributed to the Indian government tolerating the persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh.

 

I have been told by several highly placed Bangladeshis that the nation’s leadership is aware of the persecution and their deliberate hands off approach to it. But, they have told me almost to a person, that Prime Minister and effectively Bangladesh’s strongwoman Sheikh Hasina is adamant in maintaining the stance that there is no culpable persecution. One of her reasons, they have told me, is India’s silence; and that until something comes from India, she will not allow anything to change. Every Indian must raise their voices and let their elected officials know that they will not tolerate Indian passivity towards Bangladesh’s ethnic cleansing of Hindus. Why India? In part because knowing about this and doing nothing is morally reprehensible. In part because Prime Minister Modi already has taken the step to include Bangladesh among nations that persecute Hindus. And in part because India has the world’s largest Hindu population. Do you remember the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that caused such outrage in the Muslim world? When that happened, at least 15 Muslim majority nations felt beholden to issue formal protests to Denmark—not the newspaper or journalist. Bangladesh lodged a formal diplomatic protest. Pakistan’s ambassador urged that Denmark punish the cartoonist. Iran, never one to be rational, recalled its ambassador and blamed it all on a ”Zionist conspiracy.” When will India stand up for persecuted Hindus next door? And if it does not, we will have to blame ourselves for a failure of will and a lack of action.

 

Do you know that when I first learned about the plight of Bangladesh’s Hindus, many self-styled “Hindu nationalists” and groups, who will remain nameless, told me not to bother with it? They knew that Hindus were being persecuted and systematically eliminated but told me not to make an issue out of it because (and I’m quoting again), “no one cares, no one  will ever care.”

 

Now let’s move to my wheelhouse: the United States of America. We have taken action on human rights issues without regard to whether or not it was in our material interests. We led the international effort to save Bosnian Muslims in the 1990s, and though it was done under NATO, the reality is that it does not happen without US leadership or Americans being the major military force. Earlier in this century, the US provided similar leadership on Darfur and was part of the multi-national force that intervened. In these and other cases, it also issued very strong statements, took diplomatic action, and funded the actions of others. I have become a rather familiar face to many in Washington as I continue pressing the case for US action on saving Bangladesh’s Hindus.

 

We are particularly well suited for a lead role in this case. Bangladeshis are rightly proud of their country’s economic miracle; and I along with them look for more success. But it all could come crashing down in an instant—if we get serious about stopping the human rights atrocity being carried out against Bangladesh’s Hindus. As noted earlier, the Bangladeshi economy is inordinately dependent on its exports, particularly of readymade garments. And guess who their biggest customer is? That’s right, the United States. What would happen if President Trump imposed tariffs on Bangladesh goods, making them more expensive in a very competitive market? As someone who spent decades working in the US corporate world, I can tell you what will happen.  Their customers would look elsewhere for more reasonable prices; and no matter what Bangladesh does to address its problem with Hindus, it will never get that market share back.  Add to that the fact that US corporations will be shy about doing business with a country that is guilty of ethnic cleansing (and I’ve spoken with many of their leaders).

 

The Bangladeshi economy has been hit hard by COVID-19. Like China’s, Bangladesh’s economy does not control its own destiny. It’s dependent on consumer habits halfway around the world; and those consumers have not been spending money as in the past. Moreover, structural changes in the US job scene has more people working at home, which means less need for regularly refreshing our wardrobes.

 

All Bangladesh has to do in order to avoid a complete economic disaster is to recognize what they already know and get out in front of the issue. In discussions with Bangladeshi officials, I have pointed out that if this one individual (me) can uncover and document their complicity in ethnic cleansing, eventually others will know. Already, most people in Washington recognize Bangladeshi complicity, and some are ready to take action. Yet, in a Congressional briefing on Bangladesh, the government continued to deny what the mounting evidence shows us. The key is unequal application of the law in Bangladesh, and if Sheikh Hasina were to take action that guarantees that for all Bangladeshis, she would neutralize the growing sentiment against current Bangladeshi actions. Will she do it?  Tough to say, but it will not happen unless we act, and act with passion.

 

I’m going to close my talk with the same challenge I usually issue when I close, and I pray that you take this challenge seriously; not just today, but tomorrow, and all the tomorrows that follow:

 

When you leave this seminar today, what are you going to DO about it? Not what will you say or how you will feel—BUT WHAT WILLYOU DO! Bidhan Chandra College is about a three-hour drive from Bangladesh, and less than 45 minutes from the border to Shatkhira, which has seen a number of anti-Hindu actions. The most recent one that I confirmed was only 48 days ago! So, what are you going to do about it? Unless you don’t think this is important enough to trouble yourself about, you know, disturb your schedule.

 

In the end, that’s the only thing that matters. What gall it is for us to congratulate ourselves for being part of a seminar while Bangladesh’s Hindus still live in fear and face multiple atrocities daily.

 

I’ve found that people engage in human rights atrocities most often because they believe that (1) they won’t get caught; and (2) no one will make a fuss over it. Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina feels safe enough to allow this to continue primarily because no one in India cares enough even to say anything. Change her calculations. Make a stink about it—to her, and even more importantly to your own elected leaders. YOU can make a difference in ways I can’t. With sustained effort, YOU can make your leaders accountable for what they do about this. If you really want to do something about this quiet case of ethnic cleansing, then come to me with your proposed solutions. You can get my email address from the organizers of today’s event.

 

So, one more time, when you walk away from this, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

Partition's Human Rights Wreckage: Address to Netaji Subhash Mahavidyalaya

By Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Address to Netaji Subhash Mahavidyalaya seminar on Partition July 12, 2020

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_tQwpaiumI&feature=youtu.be

(My part of the video begins at 2:09:51)

Good morning from the United States! First of all, I want to clarify that my talk has nothing to do with partition “literature.” Though a scholar, I’m not an academic. I am an activist. Literature is only important to me as a device; for what it accomplishes rather than for what it is. Far more important are action and results. Whatever I talk about, the burning question always is: What is to be done? So, rather than present a litany of atrocities, which you can get in a lot of places, I will be emphasizing progress, obstacles and—again—what we must do.

For almost two decades, I have been fighting the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Bangladesh; and for the past five years, I have been working with Baloch, Sindhi, and most prominently Pashtuns in their fight against Pakistan’s human rights atrocities and cultural genocide, which is often a fight for their physical survival, as well. And it is clear that the challenges they all face have been exacerbated, if not created, by the 1947 partition of what was then called “British India.”

There is no doubt that India’s 1947 partition was a bad idea then, and a deadly one ever since. Conceptually, it’s nonsense to believe the ridiculous and retrograde idea that peoples of different faiths—especially Hindus and Muslims—are unable to live together in one nation. Dress it up however one wishes; spew a thousand apologetics; Partition told the West and everyone else at a critical point in history that Third World independence meant tribalism and inter-religious hatred. We all know better than that, but the fact of Partition sent the world that false message anyway. The one to two million people killed in Partition-era violence, and the many times more whom Partition displaced certainly seemed to confirm those biases. And taking the implications beyond South Asia to developing nations in general, religious differences was still playing a prominent role in Sudan’s partition, 64 years after India’s, and in the deadly violence preceding it.

Lord Curzon partitioned Bengal in 1905, largely along religious lines, only to rescind the edict a mere six years later. And while it’s delusional to claim that action caused the enmity between Bengali Hindus and Muslims, it provided communal elements a template for later partition demands. And a deadly template it was!

Twenty years of struggle has not be for nothing, and there has been some good progress. There remains much to be done, and that’s what we need to get to; action. People in Tripura can see what’s happening to Bangladesh’s Hindus close up, but much of the world can’t. They don’t know that Bangladesh’s Hindus face human rights atrocities every day that are never prosecuted. Neither do they know that in Bangladesh you can be killed for helping someone convert from Islam to Hinduism—and the perpetrator will not be prosecuted—at the same time that forcible conversion to Islam is not a crime. And many believe that if there is a problem, it was a problem only under the openly Islamist-loving Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP); but not under the currently ruling Awami League. Wrong, wrong, wrong! The presumed association between the BNP and Islamists more nuanced than the Awami League and its apologists would like us to believe. If anything, it’s worse for Hindus and other minorities under Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League because that party tries to hide behind its no longer applicable reputation.

We also face the following obstacles, pretty unique to this situation:

1. The investment of international elites in maintaining the fiction of Bangladesh as a “moderate” nation;

2. The fact that these atrocities are not carried out by the Bangladeshi government, but merely enabled by it;

3. The silence and lack of activism from India and the international Hindu community.

It’s a lot easier for someone sitting in Chicago, for instance, to see the carnage that occurred in Sri Lanka and Rwanda, to take two of many examples. Those clever disguises of this “quiet case of ethnic cleansing,” coupled with the decades-long acquiescence of most Hindus, has allowed people to pretend this just does not exist. But it does!

Pakistan’s first post-partition census (1951) counted Hindus as a bit less than one out of every three East Bengalis; that is, even after the movement of peoples that accompanied Partition, East Pakistan’s population included that high a proportion of Hindus. That is, if we apply the same proportionate number to Bangladesh’s current population of 165 million, it would equate to 49.5 million Hindus. For some perspective, that would make Bangladeshi Hindus the world’s 30th largest country: bigger than every Middle East/North African nation except Egypt; larger than all but three Central or South American countries; and bigger than 24 of the 27 countries in the European Union.

That’s a lot of people! Unfortunately, today’s Hindu population of Bangladesh is not 49.5 million. Depending on whose information you believe, it is between 12 and 14 million. What happened to the rest of them?

From that 1951 census until East Pakistan became Bangladesh, the percentage of Hindus dropped from under a third to under a fifth; but the decline did not just happen under Pakistan. Bangladeshi leaders like to contrast their country with the one from which they revolted in 1971; but this is at least one area where the contrast is anything but convincing. For after only 30 years of living in Bangladesh, the proportion of Hindus dropped to less than a tenth. Today, they are seven to eight percent of the population, around one in 15.

Over the years of my fight, Bangladeshi leaders have tried to get me off this human rights effort—to ignore it as most other people do and as they prefer it. Their futile efforts involved giving me any number of “reasons” for this significant decline in Hindus, having nothing to do with the unbroken string of documented atrocities against Hindus without the government’s objection. Since successive experts in Washington, New Delhi, Europe and the international media bought them, I guess they figured I would, too. Well, they were wrong.

1.There’s no problem because there are more Hindus in Bangladesh today than at the time of Bangladeshi independence. That’s often coupled with the assertion that the decline in the Hindu proportion of the population is due to the Muslim birth rate. That the raw numbers of Bangladeshi Hindus have increased since 1971 is true enough. But consider that in 1971 Bangladesh’s total population was about 70 million, and it has grown to about two and a third times that size. Since then, its Muslim population has increased by 92 million or about two and a half times, pretty close to the national growth; but Hindus have increased by a little over 3,000,000 or about 30 percent. Are we to believe that’s a coincidence? Fortunately (or unfortunately) we do not have to depend on “belief.” We have data.

a. According to Mehtab Karim, a senior research adviser and senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and World Affairs, that assumption about birth rates might have been the prevailing wisdom in the 1960s and 1970s, but Bangladeshi Muslim birth rates have been falling since then. Attributing the slow death of Hinduism in Bangladesh to Muslim birth rates is an attempt to excuse ethnic cleansing by appealing to bias contrary to fact.

b. Throughout that entire period, we have seen an unbroken torrent of anti-Hindu atrocities that continue to this day with the tacit approval of various Bangladeshi governments. That human rights tragedy, and not some presumed disparity in birth rates, accounts for the destruction of Hinduism in Bangladesh. I have vetted the data and seen it for myself.

2. I’ve had many Bangladeshi officials react with anger and feigned insult. They refer to the flowery words in their constitution about equality but cannot answer why the reality is anything but that. This happened as recently at this year [2020] in Dhaka when one official said that he considered opposing these assertions about persecution as “the duties of a patriot.” I told him I appreciate his love of country—even respect it. As patriot myself who never shrinks from standing up for the United States, however, I expect patriots to listen to our opponents and adjust our beliefs if facts dictate it. Love of country should make us strive to keep improving, developing; not ignore the things we need to fix. The most memorable of these many incidents was a very public and loud argument I had in 2013 with the man who then was Bangladesh’s Home Minister, Muhiuddin Khan Alamgir.

The minister tried to patronize me and do nothing—as if having tea with him was the reason why I regularly disrupt my life and come to a land so far and so different from my own. When I refused to relent, he got very angry and launched in a ‘who-the-hell-are-you’ rant, and tried to seize the agenda by criticizing the US for a number of real and imagined sins from the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans to mass shootings to lower union membership. (I asked him if he seriously was equating low union membership with ethnic cleansing. He was silent.) He offered nothing other than angry accusations, and for that, I thanked him for proving my point, by dissembling rather than addressing it head on.

He finally said that all Bangladeshis “live in communal harmony,” but that I should send him any evidence to the contrary if I encounter it, and he would “take care of it personally.” My response, and this is an exact quote, “You mean to tell me that here you are the Home Minister of the country and you’re dependent on some guy from Chicago to bring you evidence? I think you have much bigger problems than we thought.” That night, by the way, after meeting with a Bangladeshi Hindu family whose daughter had been abducted with police involvement, I did as he asked and sent him pages of documentation. He never did anything about it.

3. Here’s another one: The number of Hindus have dropped because of “voluntary” emigration. My response to this excuse is that it is tantamount to saying that a person running away from a hungry tiger is doing so voluntarily. Yes, the person decided to run but only because remaining in place—no matter how much they wanted to remain—was filled with imminent danger. Several years ago, I interviewed a Hindu family in Northern Bengal only 22 after they fled Bangladesh. Their small farm was invaded, an uncle murdered, the father beaten, and the 14-year-old daughter raped. No one drove them to the border and expelled them. Does that mean they left voluntarily? I’ve confirmed that even during the past months, influential people with track records of violence have threatened Bangladeshi Hindus with death or “dire consequences” if they do not leave the country. If they decide to leave, often “advised” to do so by police, will their flight be voluntarily? I know, I know, it sounds silly to call it that, but this is what Bangladeshi officials do by calling Hindu flight “voluntary.”

4. During the past year, as I witnessed anti-Hindu actions in the capital and the hinterlands, police often said that they were not directed at Hindus, that the “majority” community faces the same thing. A stupid excuse easily dismissed when I asked them for the last time Hindus destroyed a mosque or when Hindus forcibly converted Muslims. More than once, they ended up admitting the problem and telling me that is what they are directed to say.

5. One Bangladeshi ambassador to the US once tried to “calm me down” by saying that Hindus do not have any problems in Bangladesh. “They cannot find suitable matches for their children [in Bangladesh] so they go to India where there are more Hindus.” I’ve interviewed hundreds of Bangladeshi Hindus refugees in India and not one told me that they left Bangladesh to find a marriage partner for their children.

Enough said about that idiotic excuse—except for asking why Bangladeshi officials would make such foolish excuses. Good question, and there are several reasons.

Let’s be honest, Bangladeshi officials try to dismiss my accusations because they assume that Americans get all their information from TV and movies—or at most a Google search. And it’s not just Bangladeshis. We know that, don’t we? We also know that the bias has some kernel of truth—like most biases and stereotypes—but the problem with such biases is that they take observed phenomena and generalize them based on the viewer’s prejudices. That’s why biases don’t hold up. This particular bias leaves those Bangladeshi officials without recourse when I counter their objections with sound analysis and rigorous confirmation. That is, I get a lot of these things first-hand (which could be a reason why the Bangladeshis barred me from the country for several years, no more though); and to include an incident I haven’t seen myself I require at least two independent witnesses. Anything I allege today or otherwise I have confirmed with either of those two methods. So feel free to challenge me if you want.

By the way, I have to emphasize that before confronting anyone, I needed to be skilled and rigorous in making sure my analysis and data were flawless—because you want to be prepared to overcome denials, and you want to make sure you are fighting for a just cause.

More significantly for what follows is that they toss off these stupid excuses because no one requires to do any better. In other words, Bangladeshi officials do not take these accusations seriously because no one has required them to do so. To be sure, Sheikh Hasina has a large number of problems and positive goals that she’d rather spend time addressing. Unfortunately, the excuses also show contempt for the accusers and, more importantly the victims. The intensity of their anger shows just how frightened they are of being revealed for who they are.

We have made some significant progress. Still, there remains much to do. And every day that we don’t do it means another Hindu murdered, another woman or girl raped, another child abducted, another temple destroyed, and another day closer to the extinction of Hinduism in East Bengal.

A Recent Study

The sad history of Hindus in Bangladesh has been rehashed again and again. The litany of atrocities should not be news to any of us. (And if you are unfamiliar with it, I urge you to read my 2012 work, A Quiet Case of Ethnic Cleansing: the Murder of Bangladesh’s Hindus, and to read any number of my articles on my web site, www.interfaithstrength.com. ) Recently, however, I have been gathering data on current attacks on Bangladeshi Hindus, and have spent most of this month vetting them. My focus was the Bangladesh’s initial lockdown to prevent the spread of COVID-19, 23 March through 30 May. I figured that if people would risk infection and possible death to attack Hindus, they’re probably pretty rabid about it. I also figured that if Sheikh Hasina’s government was passive about it, even during this time when their actions might threaten the health of all Bangladeshis, it’s probably equally committed to letting it happen. Before I proceed with what I found, know that I have not finished third stage vetting of some, so to an extent findings are subject to some change, though the overall trend will remain the same; I’ve confirmed enough for that. The vetting might also reveal more crimes against Hindus.

I found 77 anti-Hindu incidents during those 69 days; more than one every day. All of them were specifically anti-Hindu, or they were crimes committed against Hindus because the perpetrators knew they could do so with impunity; and they were incidents in which the government did not take action to save victims or arrest and punish perpetrators. The 77 incidents involved at least the following: assault 36; home invasion 31; vandalism 27; land grabbing 22; religious desecration 17; robbery 11; death threats 8; false arrest 8; extortion 3; and at least three murders, two child abductions, three forced conversions; at least four sexual assaults; a number of other crimes; and three incidents that can be described only as anti-Hindu pogroms (organized attacks on the entire community with government complicity). All involved unequal protection under the law, something that numerous international jurists have identified as endemic in Bangladesh; and all involved armed perpetrators.

If this can happen when everyone is supposed to be sheltering in place, imagine what life is like for Hindus in Bangladesh when there are no such restrictions!

Once I have completed the vetting, I plan to get this information to key Senators and Members of Congress I know and have discussed this matter with already. They are expecting my intervention and some direction on what they can do to use the power of the US government to stop the atrocities.

Progress

There has been some progress, and we only can hope that it’s responsible for stopping some anti-Hindu actions. For decades, most of the international community, like Bangladesh itself, was invested in maintaining Bangladesh’s brand as a “moderate Muslim country,” democratic, and hospitable to minorities. A couple decades of facts to the contrary has led to that. There even have been serious concerns expressed in the European Parliament, a body not known for taking an aggressive posture on this matter. India’s Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was also an important step in recognizing Bangladeshi culpability. The CAA’s inclusion of Bangladesh, along with Pakistan and Afghanistan, as a nation whose minorities can find safe haven in India, represented the first official statement by India acknowledging that Hindus and other religious minorities are not safe in Bangladesh and face human rights abuses sufficient to allow them sanctuary in India. As someone who has seen those human rights abuses in Bangladesh for two decades, I applaud India and the government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for recognizing that Hindus and others face ongoing atrocities in Bangladesh, and for providing a safe haven where they can flee until the Bangladeshi government lives up to the ideals that were supposed to undergird their national life.

The conversation has changed in Washington, too. Members of Congress, the Senate, and the Administration, all recognize Bangladeshi government complicity in the ethnic cleansing of Hindus there. Many of them have laughed with me when I told them how Bangladeshi officials tried to dismiss these serious allegations. And in 2016, a high Bangladeshi official admitted to me and, more importantly, Congressman Bob Dold, that yes, they have a problem with anti-Hindu persecution. Significantly, this happened in a meeting room of the House Committee on Ways and Means, of which Dold was a member. Ways and Means is one of the most powerful committees in Washington because it controls all legislation about funding and trade—two issues critical to the Bangladeshi economy. Bob Dold has left Congress, but several current Ways and Means members also see Bangladeshi culpability. One of them is Congressman Brad Schneider, like Dold from my own Chicago area, who was in the process of taking an unprecedented step and going to the Bangladeshi embassy to address the ethnic cleansing of Hindus directly and forcefully. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 process has delayed that, but not stopped it.

By the way, I am not focusing on the US because I see us as the new British Raj; God forbid! I do so for three reasons. One, the United States has the economic and geopolitical resources to do something about this. Two, the Bangladeshi economy is inordinately dependent on exports to the United States and receipts from UN peacekeeping, of which US taxpayers are the greatest funders by far. Three, current US foreign policy is perfect for addressing Bangladesh’s ethnic cleansing of Hindus.

The administration of President Donald Trump has not hesitated to use tariffs in its international diplomatic efforts, and the prospect of that has to scare the daylights out of the Bangladeshis. Moreover, despite the assertions of its detractors, there is indeed a unifying foreign policy philosophy, or Trump Doctrine, and a rather effective one. Rather than use our military might, this administration has decided to use American economic might and good negotiating skills to project American power and interests without putting young Americans in harm’s way or engaging in wars of nation building. We have seen this time and again, most notably with Iran. Regardless of our own views, we all can agree that the US and Iran follow antithetical paths and in prior centuries might already have fought it out on the battlefield. While there have been military actions, most notably the US killing of Qasem Soleimani for his murder of Americans and continued terrorism activities, the key in this battle has been US economic sanctions, which are contributing to negative development in that country and a lack of resources to its terrorist proxies. Venezuela is another example whrere sanctions have contributed to a 2018 inflation rate of 1.7 million percent! We also have been seeing it in the US-China struggle. They have strained elements of the Chinese economy and make it increasingly difficult for China to sustain the amount of foreign debt to it through its Belt & Road Initiative. Now, more countries are looking to work with the US after the COVID-19 crisis has led developed nations to look for new supply chains that will prevent the Chinese economy from reaching the heights its leaders expected.

Contrary to how it might appear, I actually have a great deal of affection for the people of Bangladesh. While some Bangladeshis have tried to make my life difficult, or even tried to do worse, I generally find Bangladeshis warm and hospitable; and appreciative of others. Good example. Once when I landed in Dhaka, an individual officer recognized me and my efforts, attempted to get information out of me, and detained me at the airport for over two hours. Yet, ultimately, he was told to stop his harassment by those above him in the food change and even apologize for the trouble he caused. Some Bangladeshis are really nasty to me—even worse to minorities living there—but the general tenor is quite the opposite. So, I want the best for the people there and the country. I remember learning with pleasure about Bangladesh’s economic rise out of the category of “less developed” and can get the country some help with other issues. But I will not do that as long as the government continues to allow the oppression of Hindus and others; and until they do, I will use whatever influence I have to bring them to the negotiating table.

That said, there are some very specific things we can do to save these victims of government approved human rights abuses. In order to do them effectively, we need to recognize the following principles and act by them: (1) This is a moral quest in which we are fighting to save lives; if we do what’s convenient and abandon our effort, we are no better than those who carry out these acts. If we know about them and do nothing, we are no less guilty than the perpetrators. (2) The Bangladeshi government will not do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. Know that! But it likely will do the right thing if we make it in their interests to do so, including making continued oppression harmful to their concrete interests. (3) Never exchange action for words; it’s a bad deal. Do not accept promises until you see the action. Words themselves are meaningless.

What Must be Done

Let’s first talk about India. This is the world’s largest democracy, where there is freedom of expression. I’ve spent one to three months in India every year for the past 13, and I have observed that most restrictions on free speech are generated by individuals internally. The biggest factor is the fear of being thought “impolite” or even worse. The next is a general desire not to offend political leaders; and even if many reserve that only for the side of the political divide they support, others make it general. There are others, but those are the two most impactful. And I find it funny because we can site so many incidents where Indians threw all of that caution to the wind, took bold and successful military steps, and demonstrated a superior ability to get things done. Regardless, this reticence has contributed to India pretending that nothing is happening in Bangladesh; or that the concern of Hindus in East Bengal are not the concerns of Hindus in Punjab, Delhi, or Maharashtra. These observations are only meaningful because, I believe, they have contributed to the Indian government tolerating the persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh.

I have been told by several highly placed Bangladeshis that the nation’s leadership is aware of the persecution and their deliberate hands off approach to it. But, they have told me almost to a person, that Prime Minister and effectively Bangladesh’s strongwoman Sheikh Hasina is adamant in maintaining the stance that there is no culpable persecution. One of her reasons, they have told me, is India’s silence; and that until something comes from India, she will not allow anything to change. Every Indian must raise their voices and let their elected officials know that they will not tolerate Indian passivity towards Bangladesh’s ethnic cleansing of Hindus. Why India? In part because knowing about this and doing nothing is morally reprehensible. In part because Prime Minister Modi already has taken the step to include Bangladesh among nations that persecute Hindus. And in part because India has the world’s largest Hindu population. Do you remember the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that caused such outrage in the Muslim world? When that happened, at least 15 Muslim majority nations felt beholden to issue formal protests to Denmark—not the newspaper or journalist. Bangladesh lodged a formal diplomatic protest. Pakistan’s ambassador urged that Denmark punish the cartoonist. Iran, never one to be rational, recalled its ambassador and blamed it all on a ”Zionist conspiracy.” When will India stand up for persecuted Hindus next door? And if it does not, we will have to blame ourselves for a failure of will and a lack of action.

Do you know that when I first learned about the plight of Bangladesh’s Hindus, many self-styled “Hindu nationalists” and groups, who will remain nameless, told me not to bother with it? They knew that Hindus were being persecuted and systematically eliminated but told me not to make an issue out of it because (and I’m quoting again), “no one cares, no one will ever care.”

Now let’s move to my wheelhouse: the United States of America. We have taken action on human rights issues without regard to whether or not it was in our material interests. We led the international effort to save Bosnian Muslims in the 1990s, and though it was done under NATO, the reality is that it does not happen without US leadership or Americans being the major military force. Earlier in this century, the US provided similar leadership on Darfur and was part of the multi-national force that intervened. In these and other cases, it also issued very strong statements, took diplomatic action, and funded the actions of others. I have become a rather familiar face to many in Washington as I continue pressing the case for US action on saving Bangladesh’s Hindus.

We are particularly well suited for a lead role in this case. Bangladeshis are rightly proud of their country’s economic miracle; and I along with them look for more success. But it all could come crashing down in an instant—if we get serious about stopping the human rights atrocity being carried out against Bangladesh’s Hindus. As noted earlier, the Bangladeshi economy is inordinately dependent on its exports, particularly of readymade garments. And guess who their biggest customer is? That’s right, the United States. What would happen if President Trump imposed tariffs on Bangladesh goods, making them more expensive in a very competitive market? As someone who spent decades working in the US corporate world, I can tell you what will happen. Their customers would look elsewhere for more reasonable prices; and no matter what Bangladesh does to address its problem with Hindus, it will never get that market share back. Add to that the fact that US corporations will be shy about doing business with a country that is guilty of ethnic cleansing (and I’ve spoken with many of their leaders).

The Bangladeshi economy has been hit hard by COVID-19. Like China’s, Bangladesh’s economy does not control its own destiny. It’s dependent on consumer habits halfway around the world; and those consumers have not been spending money as in the past. Moreover, structural changes in the US job scene has more people working at home, which means less need for regularly refreshing our wardrobes. So, their economy will face new challenges that demand even more so that they take action on matters they can control, like this one.

All Bangladesh has to do in order to avoid a complete economic disaster is to recognize what they already know and get out in front of the issue. In discussions with Bangladeshi officials, I have pointed out that if this one individual (me) can uncover and document their complicity in ethnic cleansing, eventually others will know. Already, most people in Washington recognize Bangladeshi complicity, and some are ready to take action. Yet, in a Congressional briefing on Bangladesh, the government continued to deny what the mounting evidence shows us. The key is unequal application of the law in Bangladesh, and if Sheikh Hasina were to take action that guarantees that for all Bangladeshis, she would neutralize the growing sentiment against current Bangladeshi actions.

What do we have to do? I want to provide an example of that. If you were in the United States in the 1970s or 1980s, you would not have been able to pass a Jewish synagogue without seeing a large banner reading “Save Soviet Jewry.” Our co-religionists were being persecuted in the USSR, and the American Jewish community knew that if we did nothing about it, no one would. So we mobilized a community wide response. Average men and women, who you might see at the market or in the office took the perilous journey to the Soviet Union to smuggle in religious books and artifacts, at considerable risk to themselves, so the persecuted Jews there would know they were not alone—something very important that has been a big factor in what we do for Bangladeshi Hindus. We lobbied our political leaders, and because we knew this was a moral issue, not a specifically “Jewish” one, we got other religious groups to lobby theirs, too. It was the first question President Ronald Reagan would raise with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev and played a role in the US boycott of the 1980 Moscow olympics. In the end, we got over 1.2 million Jews out of that Soviet hell hole; and you can do the same for Bangladesh’s Hindus.

Will Sheikh Hasina finally do what’s right and necessary? At the moment, she seems stuck on nothing but blanket denials that no one believes any more. We can help her decide to do the right thing by remaining strong in lobbying our governments—all Indians, not just Hindus—make sure they do the right thing and save Hinduism in Bangladesh. Thank you.

Foreign Policy Research Centre interviews Richard Benkin on COVID-19 geopolitics

By Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Originally published July 10, 2020 in FPRC JOURNAL J-43- 2020 (3); Focus : COVID-19 : Impact on World Geo-politics and Economy

http://www.interfaithstrength.com/FPRC%20COVID-19%20Impact%20Interview.pdf

Dr. Richard L. Benkin an American human rights activist, journalist, writer and lecturer. Author of A Quiet Case of Ethnic Cleansing: the Murder of Bangladesh's Hindus and What is Moderate Islam?

All responses remain somewhat provisional as this 21st century pandemic puts us in uncharted territory. India and Israel, for example, did an effective job of containing the outbreak with severe restrictions. Yet, as soon as they felt it was safe to ease them, both saw significant spikes in COVID-19 cases. What will a “second wave” (or renewed first wave) of infections mean? Will it take us back to square one, or will it pass with little impact? Will we develop an effective vaccine, when will we do that, will it be made universally available?

1. Misplaced priorities - Expenditure on Armament vs Public Healthcare have been exposed in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Do you agree?

While COVID-19 has exposed misplaced priorities, this is not one of them. The issue is not whether or not we want war and killing; let’s hope none of us do. Yet, we know that the worst actors on the planet will continue to threaten peace and freedom. That makes it suicidal to find money for healthcare by taking it away from the defense we need against those bad actors. The real issue is how we find and allocate funds for needed expenditures, and it does not make sense to look for it in military spending cuts while there are targets with greater expenditures. For instance, the United States (US) spends more money on defense than any other country; according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2.8 times the amount spent by China, second in military expenditures; and 10.3 the amount spent by India, third in military expenditures. In fact, the US spends more on the military than the next ten countries combined. That leads many to assume that defense is the largest part of the US budget. Not true; in fact, in 2019, 29 other countries (including Pakistan and Bangladesh) gave a greater share of their government spending to the military than did the United States. Moreover, that percentage has stayed the same or fallen in the US every year since 2011; and the US Congressional Budget Office projects it to continue dropping through the next two decades. Let’s not cut it further as long as countries like Iran need to know that others will prevent them from carrying out genocidal designs.

Defense is the largest part of US “discretionary spending,” which receives disproportional attention because it is the subject of heated Congressional debates annually. In reality, though, discretionary spending leaves out about two-thirds of the money spent by the US—and almost all of that already goes to healthcare for the poor, plus income and healthcare for the elderly and disabled. The greatest factor limiting funds for healthcare is not large defense expenditure but how we spend our money in all categories. Finding more money for healthcare anywhere, requires us to identify existing inefficiencies, sweetheart deals, overpricing, and most of all corruption and cronyism. Getting a handle on those issues will free up more money than a dozen anti-military spending bills ever could.

Still, the almost $2 trillion spent by countries on defense in 2019 is a lot of money. Do I wish nations did not spend money on arms? Of course, but unless the nations of the world have a backbone that they consistently fail to show, it takes only one bad actor to make that a wrong-headed and deadly decision. And there are all too many bad actor candidates today from Iran to North Korea to Cuba. In the 1920s, the world’s warweary democracies chose to do just that. Between 1919 and 1924, the US cut its military spending by 95 percent from $87.16 billion to $4.55 billion. The other World War I allies cut even deeper, leaving them unprepared for bad actors Adolf Hitler, Hideki Tojo, and Benito Mussolini. Had the western democracies not reversed that trend, World War II would have ended differently. Then what? We're living under Nazism and people are being slaughtered, but at least we have good healthcare? That’s certainly a tradeoff I wouldn’t make. You can't disarm without resolving the issues that cause nations and groups to take military action or resort to violence. We're not even close to addressing them and until we do, I take comfort in the military superiority of nations like the United States, Israel, and India. What would happen if the United States reduced its military expenditure and China did not; or India reduced its and Pakistan did not; or Israel reduced its military spending and Iran did not? These are life and death matters every bit as much as is stopping a pandemic. Military spending remains a priority, and should not be seen as the source of increased public health funds.

Moreover, even if a glut of money suddenly appeared, governments have shown a decided incompetence in spending such funds. What sort of healthcare safety net do we buy, who runs it, who oversees it, and so forth? And regardless of that answer, whether we are addressing defense, public health, or any other spending category, there are serious self-interests, corruptions, and cost overruns. How do we prevent them from illicitly funneling money that otherwise would be used to help people? If we really are serious about increasing healthcare coverage, we must go beyond good intentions and commit to act resolutely, no matter whose personal wealth is affected by it. No public health scheme anywhere effectively addresses costs, cronyism, or corruption, and if COVID-19 taught us anything, it is that we cannot afford to accept these unwarranted costs at the expense of pandemic preparedness and public health. We cannot look the other way while we are overcharged because people have connections or because doing what's needed angers the "wrong" people. Nor can we go back to business as usual and be unprepared for the next crisis—pandemic, environmental, or military. It rests with us to hold accountable the decision-makers and political leaders; and not just the ones we don’t like; something we can do in a democracy. If we need more funds for any use, we can find them in those inefficiencies and self-interests, not by slashing needed defense spending.

2. Do you believe the efficacy of International Organisations--UN and WHO - is at stake in the light of COVID-19?

Even before the COVID-19 crisis, almost all of these international organizations demonstrated a passion for ineffectiveness and soiled credibility. What have they actually accomplished in their seven to eight decades of existence? Peacekeeping forces turn tail and run when told to by the countries they are supposed to defend against (e.g., the Sinai 1967); and even while on the job, they avoid confrontations that might actually help keep the peace. Their deliberations in New York are driven by short term geopolitical considerations and personal gain to the exclusion of real achievement. And UN groups like UNESCO, UNRWA, and UNHRC have exacerbated the problems they were created to solve due to their leaders’ bias and disregard of facts. The misnomered UN Human Rights Council has spent more effort condemning India for its recent citizenship law than it has Pakistan and Bangladesh combined for their decades of human rights atrocities against Hindus and other minorities. These organizations and their members, who include the world’s most repressive regimes, are more committed to trashing democracies like India, Israel, and the United States than to the principles that are their raison d’etre. In other words, their sad performance has done more to reduce their efficacy than did COVID-19.

The corruption and ineffectiveness of these and other international organizations during this crisis highlighted their incompetence further. Instead of operating on principle, they consistently choose politics and their own creature comforts. Some will continue to support them nonetheless because they are aspirational as a model for international relations; and some because they reflect their particular set of political or economic interests. Additionally, the UN represents a gigantic transfer payment device without conditions or consistent principles. The United States pays for about a quarter of all UN expenditures. China, Japan, and Germany together provide about the same amount; and the other 189 member nations make up the rest. But those top nations are not recipients of UN largesse. For instance, the US provides almost 30 percent of UN peacekeeping force money, even after President Trump’s UN funding cuts. Bangladesh, on the other hand, paid a total of $278,000 to all UN programs in 2019, so far has paid nothing in 2020; yet has received between $200-300 million annually for decades (about half of which goes to the troops and the other half into someone’s coffers). The more that UN organizations show themselves to be corrupt and inefficient, the more that US taxpayers will question their contributions, which are necessary for the groups’ viability.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has become the poster child for that anger. WHO’s role in promoting China’s false narrative about COVID-19, and its contribution to the international pandemic has become an explosive issue in the US. Far from reflecting an organization that promotes better healthcare, WHO’s corrupt actions have caused untold costs, suffering, and death. Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch wrote in the American newsmagazine Newsweek, that WHO appointed James Chau as a goodwill ambassador in 2016 and re-appointed him twice since then. According to Neuer, Chau is “a Chinese government news presenter who has broadcast forced confessions and…. armed with his U.N. badge of legitimacy, has been mobilized from the start of the pandemic to spin for Beijing on [social media], abusing his WHO title to whitewash China's record and legitimize the regime and its officials.” The most recent intelligence and investigative journalism show that China knew about the deadly virus as early as last summer but kept it quiet with WHO’s blessing. At the same time that China was covering up its role in spreading COVID death and destruction, WHO was praising its actions. Many people have told WHO that it can its funding by sacking Tedros Adhanom Ghegreyesus as its head; others are not sure even that will save the organization. At the very least, structural changes will be needed to prevent similar distortions from an organization that exists to do the very opposite of what it actually did. When the crisis passes and Americans have to make some tough economic choices, there will be little appetite to send their hard earned tax dollars to an organization that had a role in the nightmare of pandemic. We can get a glimpse of what that will look like from Trump’s withdrawal of funds from WHO, which both heartens and trouble me. As an American taxpayer, I am tired of funding people and groups who are antithetical to my country and values. In this instance and others, Trump has made it clear that those days of easy US funding are over. My advice to multinational organizations: Believe that, especially if Trump is re-elected. Despite our economic success, we have doubled our national debt during this crisis and cannot, for the sake of our children's futures, continue to spend money willy-nilly while others feed off our largesse when they can do more themselves. In fact, I think it is quite appropriate that, given WHO's complicity with China, Trump is restoring our contribution to the same amount as China's (about ten percent of what we gave previously). Why am I troubled? Because no organization will succeed if nations can withdraw when they don't like what they are doing. The US action correctly told WHO there are consequences for its bad actions, corruption, and refusal to be answerable for them. As long as any nation can do that, however, the reality of a supranational organization is a mere chimera.

3. COVID-19 and the Environment: Is There a Relationship?

There has been no serious correlation between climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic; nor are there any credible data linking the two. What the crisis has done, however, is expose our general unpreparedness for major threats like this one, on the one hand, and our almost blind faith that technology will overcome it. The pandemic has made it clear that there are things in this natural world that threaten our ways of life, perhaps even our lives themselves, and we ignore them at our peril. Additionally, even if technology helps us this time, should we be oblivious to these threats once the immediate crisis has passed? We do that at our peril as well.

The crisis also exposed our interconnectedness as a species; that these events have a global impact and cannot be confined to a single country or region. We need a global response; and we won’t get one as long as those involved are more committed to their particular ideology than to helping the planet. All of them—left, right, and center— must acknowledge that there are different and equally legitimate understandings of the phenomenon and how to fix it. Without that flexibility, there will not be a global consensus. Even as our world is being wracked by the COVID-19 pandemic, we have not built consensus over what it will take to defeat the virus, what criteria make it safe to ease up on restrictions meant to slow or prevent contagion, and what it will take for economies to recover. We simply have to abandon political divides and focus on the science, the threat, and reality; even if we don’t like the politics of others at the table. We must build that general consensus recognizing climate change as a threat, regardless of its cause. The extent to which it is a cyclical phenomenon or something caused by human actions does not lessen that threat. It's also a threat regardless of whether we believe the solution has to come from government or private industry.

We saw what can happen when we don’t do this. Despite all the European Union’s stated values about a united continent, many of its constituent nations blocked needed supplies from being shipped to Italy early in the crisis, even though it might have reduced the plague’s virulence. Instead, they saw the Italians as “others” and kept the supplies for themselves. In the end, their cowardice did not help them avoid COVID-19’s destruction. We cannot afford to repeat that.

4. How do you visualise the shape of the Geopolitical Future? Bipolar or Multipolar; Impact of US–China rivalry

We know that the post pandemic world will be different, but despite talk of “flattening curves” and easing restrictions, we are far from being out of danger. Though today’s predictions might not be likely once the pandemic runs its course, we can be confident of some things already that will alter the geopolitical landscape dramatically, beginning with a radical change in the global economy to China’s disadvantage with immense geopolitical implications, especially in its epic battle with the United States.

For some time, I have called the Chinese economy a “house of cards”; unsubstantial because it depends on consumer spending from countries halfway around the world. If they stop spending for whatever reason, China is in trouble because it does not control its own economic destiny. About half of China’s exports go to the United States and Europe, both of which have seen a significant drop in business and consumer spending during the pandemic, and likely will see it continue in the post-COVID-19 world. That’s bad news for China. With many Americans now working from home, they have less need for consumer items that they used while spending five days a week in the office social setting. For instance, they have found that they don’t need a variety of dressy clothing and accessories and even prefer a casual and less expensive form of dress. The US is the largest importer of Chinese textiles and apparel—Bangladesh better watch out, too. China was already hurting because of its trade war with the US. Increased consumer demand—a gift to China from the US boom economy—helped soften the impact; but that mitigating factor is gone now. Nor can China expect American workers to return to offices once the lockdowns end. Some years ago, I was engaged in corporate discussions measuring the economic impact of more workers working from home. The economic benefit was significant, and we made a lot of changes because of it. Because of COVID19, more American companies now see those advantages, are used to remote workers, and will not forego them, especially in a changing economy. Additionally, consumer spending is scheduled to take another huge hit with sellers unable to meet required time lines to stock shelves and advertise goodies for the winter holidays, a period that makes or breaks producers of consumer goods. This is especially damaging for China because its economic niche is selling inexpensive versions of consumer goods to people who otherwise might not be able to afford them; and that niche has fueled China’s economic footprint in the West. Also expect consumers to be overall more conservative in their holiday purchases after months of reduced or missing income. Businesses lost income, too, and will be watching their expenses more closely. That reduced consumer demand could have a disastrous effect on sellers of electronics, especially phones and computers, with buyers having a much lighter appetite for the latest iterations. In 2018, these goods represented 27 percent of all Chinese exports worldwide. Not incidentally, India is the sixth largest importer of Chinese goods, and the recent India-China border clash has seen renewed calls for Indians to eschew Chinese imports and look instead to domestic production. While a full shift will not be practicable soon, expect reduced Indian imports from China, too.

On the other hand, the US economy entered the COVID-19 era in very strong shape. The country was at full employment, consumer optimism and therefore spending was robust; even manufacturers were returning to the US, growing by almost half a million jobs in Trump’s first two years in office. And in a reversal of previous trends, US companies overseas returned to the United States, which also enticed many foreign firms with new tax structures and low energy prices to locate there. According to Forbes, “manufacturing output in real dollars reached an all-time high in mid-2019, capacity utilization is back to post-war norms, and exports of goods…have increased by about 15 percent since [Trump took office in] January 2017.” Despite lockdowns closing much of the US economy, expect it to be as strong or stronger when the crisis has passed. Even with much of the economy still shut down at the time of this writing, the stock market was only six percent off its all-time high.

COVID-19 rocked previous economic relations by seriously disrupting supply chains for companies in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia; where manufacturing sectors had been outsourced to China. US manufacturing jobs, for example, were eleven percent of all jobs in 1998 but only 6.7 percent 20 years later. They were 28 percent in 1960. Now, according to the Harvard Business Review, American corporate heads “are confidentially asking their supply chain teams to develop additional sources that are completely independent of China”; a sentiment echoed by Chinese billionaire and industrial kingpin Cao Dewang who acknowledged that “the global industrial chain will reduce its dependence on China.” The airline industry’s uncertain future is more bad news for China. US-Chinese business ties require extensive travel to China that will lead travel weary businessmen and cost conscious businesses to look elsewhere. The industry will not be able to support the current number of carriers, and fewer carriers mean less travel options, greater travel times, and higher fares. Social distancing requirements will mean lower occupancy that airlines will try to make up for with, again, higher fares; all of which makes Chinese goods more expensive than the cheap price points that were their selling feature to US businesses. Add to that China’s dissembling about the virus, which only heightened Americans’ concerns about safety and the quality of goods from a country whose low costs come from skirting safety, labor, and environmental regulations. Seizing on the advantages that brings, the Trump administration has sensed an opportunity for geopolitical advantage and economic independence, and is pressuring US companies to decouple from China.

The geopolitical implications could not be greater. Since 2013, China has financed up to $8 trillion (according to some estimates) through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Although it is billed as an infrastructure initiative, BRI’s real objective is geopolitical. Its upshot would be to make trade with China simpler, quicker, and less expensive, something I’ve written about extensively elsewhere. Not only does a projection of reduced income for China put its ability to fund such projects in doubt; the borrowing countries frequently do not have the means to repay BRI loans, which has led to China seizing control of strategic ports in Sri Lanka and the Horn of Africa. Other borrowing nations have been tagged as seriously in danger of defaulting on their loans, and while that has given China geopolitical benefits in the past, the future is far murkier. Even Pakistan, whose China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is the headline BRI project and has brought Chinese military vessels to Gwadar port in Baluchistan, has canceled some BRI projects recently. It is doubtful that China will be able to maintain BRI in the future, especially through loans to countries almost certain to default. Moreover, the US sensing blood in the water, has been active and recently prevailed on Israel (one of the few BRI clients capable of loan repayment) to reject China’s bid for a massive desalinization plant.

In 2019, Chinese exports to the United States amounted to almost half a trillion dollars, equal to just under half of China’s GDP (gross domestic product). On the other hand, US exports to China that same year came to less than one half of one percent of US GDP. That places other expensive Chinese geopolitical projects in doubt—from its arms buildup to its imperialistic moves in Hong Kong and Taiwan to its expansion in the South China Sea. Will current events completely upset prior geopolitical realities? To be sure, the United States is not without its question marks. Legislation passed during the COVID-19 crisis to help citizens and small businesses have added dramatically to the growing debt; and regardless of anything else, no one knows how the United States ultimately will deal with it. Now over $26 trillion, it has gone from 57.51 percent of US GDP at the turn of the century to 131.07 percent now. Americans count on overcoming a lot of challenges through the same kind of strong economic activity that prevailed before the pandemic. But no one is certain how many of the 30 million US workers who lost their jobs because of COVID-19 business shutdowns will be out of work permanently. While Americans can anticipate a strong economic response from the Trump Administration, his re-election is not at all certain, and we do not know how a President Joe Biden would respond. Additionally, President Trump has shown a distinct preference for bilateral agreements, as they reduce the number of variables that have to be resolved to reach agreement and also favor strong negotiators like Trump. As Vice President and on the campaign trail, Biden has been consistent in supporting multilateral compacts, which tend to dilute the interests of any one country, including the United States.

Regardless, in calculating geopolitical dynamics, it is important to recall that American economic might was a major factor in victory in World War II, and over the Soviets in the Cold War. Even before it became a combatant in the Second World War, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt dubbed the US the “arsenal of freedom” and sent massive amounts of war supplies to help the British, Soviets, and Chinese in their struggles against Axis powers. Will it prevail again in this geopolitical struggle with China?

Many around the world are encouraged as well by what they see as a more recognition of democracy’s superiority over autocracy. The greatest factors separating the two during this crisis have been transparency and the vibrancy of dissent and debate. The lack of both were most prominent in China and Iran—two decidedly autocratic states with unbroken histories of crushing any dissent. Iran continued to deny its extensive COVID-19 problem for weeks in ways that exacerbated the problem (e.g., maintaining flights between Iran and China well after other countries banned air travel; travel between it and vassal states like Lebanon; encouraging large religious gatherings). That government seems less capable today of stopping the groundswell of unrest and calls for regime change that were growing even before the crisis. The most recent evidence from China is that COVID-19 was a problem in Wuhan as early as last summer. A study published by Harvard University references August 2019 surveillance photos showing a large increase in cars parked at hospitals, and jumps in queries about things like “cough” in Chinese search engines. Yet, The People’s Daily, a Chinese government mouthpiece, did not mention “the coronavirus epidemic” until 21 January 2020—the same day that the first case was confirmed in the United States. Ten days later, the US declared a national health emergency and banned almost all travel from China. But the Chinese cover up already allowed the virus to make the US number one in COVID-19 cases. India also suffered from the cover up, having the fourth most cases as of this writing. Democracies, on the other hand in large part due to a free and active media, did not feel (or didn’t care) that the virus somehow made them look bad, admitted the problem right away, and began taking action to slow the contagion.

So whether it is the US-China cold war or a global move from autocracies to free societies, the pandemic’s aftermath is certain to look different than things looked before it arrived.

5. Do you see enhanced role for India in the post-COVID-19 World Order?

Events always can change predictions, and we recently saw the India-China border clash in the Galwan Valley. Even if both sides really do prevent it from escalating, it is likelier than not that the fight will affect everyone’s geopolitical calculations. The statement by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi that the Indian soldiers’ deaths “will not be in vain,” might have as much to do with an enhanced strategic role for India in containing China as with any military response. What India’s role in the world ultimately looks like also could change depending on what happens with the second wave of COVID-19 cases there and elsewhere. Regardless, India is well-positioned to conquer new territory in its international profile, both economically and geopolitically. The strategic conflicts between China and the West (especially the US) have never been so clear. Decision-makers have taken notice and see India as the best counterweight to China.

India’s chance to change the world’s economic balance is also clear. More than a decade ago, I was on a panel with Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy, who is also a world class economist. During the session and in subsequent correspondence, he noted that China’s economy depends on importing goods from third world countries, turning them into finished products, and exporting them to the West; and he made the case for an Indian alternative: India is a democracy, China is not; India shares strategic goals with the West, China is in conflict with them; more Indian workers and managers are fluent in English than are their Chinese counterparts; and so forth. With those importing nations now looking to diversify supply lines and reduce their dependence on China, India is even better positioned today to pursue that agenda. Moreover, because COVID19 helped western nations realize that they could not become too dependent on any country, India’s opportunity therefore is not to replace China in its entirety but to take over a sizeable portion of that market with an aggressive program that capitalizes on India’s shared values with the West and the strategic importance of strengthening India as a firewall against Chinese economic and geopolitical expansion. That’s a far more achievable goal. India is also well-positioned to help the United Kingdom replace what it gave up through Brexit with the additional trading advantages it has as a Commonwealth nation. The new tripartite of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, US President Donald Trump, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also makes India an especially attractive and strategic trading partner with the US; as does the growing Indian diaspora of US citizens and their influence on corporate and political decisions. This also might be the time that India achieves its coveted goal of a permanent UN Security Council seat. It’s certainly something for which India and its strong Prime Minister should push for hard.

In the end, results will depend more on how well India capitalizes on this than on actions from anywhere else. If India plays its cards right, its new relationship with the West will be mutually beneficial—something that in and of itself should change how westerners view and interact with India.

I wish to thank the Foreign Policy Research Center and particularly its Director and Founder Dr. Mahendra Gaur. Professor Gaur and FPRC have long supported my human rights efforts and I value their relationship and opportunities like this to engage in issues-oriented debate. They also have allowed me to give my unvarnished views, looking only at the quality of my scholarship and not how others might react.

Repeal Bangladesh's blasphemy laws now!

By Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Originally published March 3, 2020 in The Daily Asian Age (Dhaka)

https://dailyasianage.com/news/221045/repeal-bangladeshs-blasphemy-laws-now

Bangladesh is one of only 12 nations in the world that enforces blasphemy laws today.  All except one are Muslim-majority countries; the other, Nigeria, is evenly split between Islam and Christianity. 

Several others, such as Australia and New Zealand, have repealed blasphemy laws in recent decades and a few more still have blasphemy laws on the books that have not been enforced for decades.

By the way, there are 50 Muslim majority countries, which means that 78 percent of them do not have blasphemy laws.  So this isn't a "Muslim thing," that non-Muslims like me just can't understand.

Bangladesh, on the other hand, actively uses its blasphemy laws to suppress speech and publications that its prosecutors find "offensive." 

And that's a problem for a country that advertises itself as democratic.  First of all, Bangladesh is one of only four of those countries that even pretends to be democratic.  The other problem is that the laws' lack of definition leaves the power to apply the law in the hands of unelected bureaucrats; and, as in Bangladesh, some people who use the law to suppress free speech.

The applicable law in Bangladesh, for example, seeks to punish citizens for intention; that is, the law criminalizes "deliberate" or "malicious" intention of "hurting religious sentiments."  Figuring out someone's intent behind an action is quite a trick that responsible jurists worldwide, especially in free countries with legal systems that protect the innocent, try to avoid.  Who determines intent? 

A single prosecutor, a powerful politician, a religious official?  None of that makes good judicial sense.  Do you have to restrict speech so that nobody is offended or only the majority community?  And to be charged with blasphemy, is it necessary to hurt the religious sentiment of only one person or more than one; and if the latter, how do you figure what that number is?  It's a mess, and the history of blasphemy laws demonstrates that.

The real criteria for determining what is and what is not blasphemy was never clear, making an effective defense difficult if not impossible.  I have been involved in several blasphemy cases, and all of them had a political component. 

As US Senator Charles Grassley noted recently, "Blasphemy laws are a vehicle for egregious violations of religious freedom and related human rights."  Beyond repressing individuals, it throws a chill on free activities by all journalists and writers, and free speech in general, just knowing that any word they say could be interpreted by an interested person as blasphemous and that their lives could be turned upside down at any moment.

The law, for instance, gives the government unrestricted power to "confiscate all copies of a newspaper if it publishes anything subversive of the state or provoking an uprising or anything that creates enmity and hatred among the citizens or denigrates religious beliefs."  Who determines that?  On what criteria?  It does not sound like a country committed to the rule of law but to the rule of individuals.

Who are the other states with active blasphemy laws?  Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Algeria (but who knows what will happen there with its revolutionary changes).  Indonesia and Malaysia, both democracies, also have blasphemy laws.

But with the exception of Indonesia and Malaysia, does that group look like one where Bangladeshis see themselves?  Those countries seem to approach US Senator Charles Grassley's statement about people living "under authoritarian regimes and fac[ing] persecution for faith and religious belief."

Although Sheikh Hasina rejected Islamist calls for new blasphemy laws, she has expressed her support for the existing laws.  In November 2018, she proclaimed that Islam is the religion of the country (thus disenfranchising about 15 million citizens).

"Anyone who pronounces offensive comments against it, or against the Prophet Muhammad, will be prosecuted according to the law."  Again, it is not clear who makes that determination or how is it made; but it certainly does not sound like free speech.

Make no mistake about it (and I know Washington well), the legislation that Senator Grassley supports is a non-binding resolution "for the global repeal of blasphemy, heresy, and apostasy laws."  Senator Grassley, however, the powerful chair of the Senate Committee on Finance and the fourth in line for Presidential succession, along with other supporters, have a number of ways to make it easy or difficult for countries to do business with the United States based on their commitment to religious freedom and the repeal of blasphemy laws. 

And take note that evangelical groups, who form a significant part of President Donald Trump's base of support, have cited the Prime Minister statement and Bangladesh's use of blasphemy laws as things that concern them.

I urge my good friends in Bangladesh to join with other democratic countries in rejecting blasphemy laws.


The writer is an American scholar and a geopolitical analyst

'Democracy cannot prevail without freedom of press'

Interview of Dr. Richard L. Benkin by the Daily Asian Age

Originally published March 2, 2020 in The Daily Asian Age (Dhaka)

https://dailyasianage.com/news/220904/democracy-cannot-prevail-without-freedom-of-press

RB: Please note that my responses have been heavily edited and while they do not distort my positions, they often simplify them and omit information.

Asian Age (AA): We welcome you to The Asian Age. First I would like to request you to tell us something about the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. How does that affect the situation in the Middle East?

Richard L. Benkin (RB): Iran is more of a big mouth than a big stick. Qasem Soleimani killed hundreds of American soldiers. He was one of the individuals through whom Iran exported terrorism to other countries. Iran still aids terrorism in foreign countries. There is a terribly authoritarian government in Iran. The Iranian economy is on the rocks.

Iran develops nuclear weapons instead of feeding its own people. Iran finances terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. The Iranian people used to be more educated and more progressive before the so-called Islamic Revolution took place in 1979. All countries should work in a united way to fight terrorism. Eliminating terror outfits is very important to establish peace all over the world. Iran should stop sponsoring terrorism with immediate effect.

AA: Why the Palestine-Israel dispute could not be yet resolved? Foreign affairs analysts hold the opinion that a sustainable settlement of the Palestine conflict is obligatory to restore peace in the Middle East. What is your approach to this phenomenon?

RB: Palestine is not serious about resolving the dispute. Israel and the United Nations made a great deal of offers to Palestine but Palestine rejected all these offers. After the war of 1967 the Arab countries had a conference in Sudanese capital Khartoum and declared that they would have no compromise, no peace and no negotiation with Israel.

Moreover, the Arab countries stated that they would not recognize Israel. Such inclement approach is responsible for the fact that the Palestine issue could not be yet resolved. It may be added that Bangladesh is one of the seven Muslim countries which have not yet recognized Israel while most of the Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia are coming closer to constitute bilateral relations with Israel.

AA: How would you evaluate the impeachment of American President Donald Trump? Does it cause any problem to Donald Trump's electoral prospects keeping in view the upcoming American presidential polls? We have come to know through news agencies that the House of Representatives impeached Donald Trump though he was afterwards acquitted by the Senate.

RB: Impeachment is a political act. The Democrats know quite well that Donald Trump cannot be removed from power. The Democrats just tried to affect the presidential elections which are scheduled to be held at the end of 2020. President Donald Trump is now in a better position to win the presidential polls. Earlier former American President Bill Clinton also faced impeachment. Former American President Richard Nixon faced similar circumstances too but he stepped down before he could be impeached.

AA: Communal harmony is one of the most essential things for all countries. Communal hazards disrupt people's normal life. You know there are some radical Islamic groups in Bangladesh who threaten the peaceful coexistence of all communities. What do you think about the status of communal harmony in Bangladesh?

RB: There is a basic anti-Hindu sentiment in Bangladesh. It is the government's duty to protect the religious minorities. We have seen in Pakistan that Pakistan Army and Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) carry out atrocities on religious minorities. It does not happen like this in Bangladesh. Religious bigots and extremists sometimes launch attacks on religious minorities in Bangladesh. Bangladesh government should prosecute the people who assail religious minorities.

Communal harmony is an obligatory thing for the prevalence of peace and stability in any country. The United States is one of the largest buyers of readymade garments (RMG) products from Bangladesh. If interreligious peace does not prevail in Bangladesh, the US companies may not feel comfortable doing business with Bangladesh. So, the ruling authorities of Bangladesh will have to make the best of their efforts to establish rule of law and a safe ambience for religious minorities. The law should be applied to all citizens equally. You cannot sustain human rights if communal harmony is not there.

AA: What's your view about democracy in South Asia with special reference to Bangladesh?

RB: I am a visitor. I am a foreigner. I think democracy is indispensable for development. Sustaining democracy is vital for the continuation of progress. Democracy is an all-inclusive approach. All citizens of a country should be treated equally. Socio-economic advancement and justice cannot be delivered to people without the prevalence of democracy. The South Asian countries including Bangladesh should engage all parties and everyone to build up a sound democratic environment.

AA: Please share with us your ideas about freedom of press.

RB: It should be noted that democracy stands for freedom of press. Democracy cannot prevail without freedom of speech and freedom of press. Freedom of press is very important to sustain human rights, good governance, rule of law and justice. If freedom of press is taken away from any newspaper, it should be exposed. The authorities concerned should stay aware of the importance of freedom of press. A civilized country cannot be imagined without a free press. We should not keep quiet if freedom of press is hindered.

AA: Most of the economists are worried about China's debt trap diplomacy. How would you interpret this point?

RB: Bangladesh must avoid China's debt trap diplomacy. Countries like Pakistan, Maldives, Sri Lanka and some other states faced much trouble after getting affiliated with Chinese financial deals. So, Bangladesh will have to examine the Chinese debts very carefully before it is too late.

AA: What is your message for The Asian Age?

RB: The Asian Age has been doing a good job by publishing reports on different domestic and international aspects. I hope The Asian Age will continue to work with professionalism and objectivity upholding sound and fair journalism.

AA: Thanks for visiting The Asian Age and for your valuable time.

RB: My pleasure. You are welcome.

What does Trump's India visit mean for Bangladesh?

by Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Originally published February 29, 2020 in The Daily Asian Age (Dhaka)

https://dailyasianage.com/news/220622/what-does-trumps-india-visit-mean-for-bangladesh

Even without a major trade agreement, this week's India visit by United States President Donald Trump indicates how close the two geopolitical allies have become. When I first started coming to India in the early 2000's, one of the most frequent questions Indians would ask me was, "Why does the US support Pakistan?"

The answer in part is that India allied itself with the Soviet Union almost since the start of the Cold War, not long after its birth. Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru called his alliance "non-aligned (NAM), but no one believed that. Nehru's pro-USSR tilt had been on display for a decade before he started his movement, and all of the major leaders were communists:

Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Ahmed Sukarno of Indonesia, Yugoslavia's Josip Broz Tito, and Nehru.There were natural consequences to its being non-aligned in name only, because until the USSR passed into the dustbin of history in 1991, US foreign policy was conducted through the prism of the Cold War; and with Nehru hobnobbing with some of the most anti-American leaders on the planet, US-India relations suffered.

Members of the US State and Defense departments are no different than their counterparts around the world. When they want to know what's going on in a particular area, they rarely get on a plane and go there. Their best bet is to pick up the phone and talk with people there whom they trust. And for more than four decades, for South Asia, that meant Pakistanis.

Even today, the Indian Congress Party, which ruled India for almost the entire period of the Cold War, maintains at least an overall distaste for the United States. For instance, the most recent Indian Prime Minister from the Congress Party, Manmohan Singh, along with the Congress leaders in both houses of the Indian parliament, boycotted the state dinner for President Trump.

Things began to thaw a little in 2000 when US President Bill Clinton visited India and its first Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee; the first visit by a US President in 22 years.

Today old animosities seem long forgotten, and the first day of Trump's visit was a daylong love fest between him and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. One Indian station counted the number of "power hugs" between Trump and Modi, declaring that the number was greater than Modi's hugs for any other world leader and another indication of their close relationship.

More seriously, the world's largest and the world's oldest democracies do share critical geopolitical interests, especially stopping China's aggressive expansion, which includes surrounding India and superseding the United States.

"Regardless," one of your former cabinet ministers asked me, "what does any of that mean for Bangladesh?" That's the key question, and there are a lot of good answers, beginning with China. The visit gives Bangladesh a roadmap for navigating its way forward, especially given the Chinese economy's likely collapse that will leave your Prime Minister looking for a new patron.

And, if she didn't know it before, she found out again that her path to one, namely the United States, runs through India. The first thing that the Trump trip does is to give your Prime Minister a way out of her disastrous decision to hook your country's rising star to China's declining economy.

Even before the coronavirus crisis, China was in trouble. The government was force to take an increasing number of actions to save business from defaulting on their sizable loans. Manufacturing demand was dropping with other players entering the market. And China's trade war with the United States was taking its toll on a fragile economy.

Moreover, these factors are making it ever more difficult for China to sustain the large number of loans it's been making under the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI). From a "road to nowhere" in Macedonia to an empty airport in The Maldives, countries are not generating sufficient income from their BRI projects to service their debt to China; and deals like China's taking control of Sri Lanka's Hambantota port in exchange for debt relief are not enough to fill the gaping hole. Even Pakistan, which became something close to a Chinese client state thought the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, or CPEC, began canceling some BRI projects to save its struggling economy.

Bangladesh can do the same, and at the same time, leverage its strategic importance to get the best deals from both the United States and China (assuming China still has the ability to do anything after the coronavirus dust settles). Here are some actions and initiatives that Bangladesh can take, which US-India closeness makes possible.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina can use her good relationship with Prime Minister Modi to have him signal to the United States that she would like to discuss a number of ways the US and Bangladesh can cooperate and extend US and Indian influence in the region.

She also can signal her desire to give Bangladesh a healthy alternative to China's BRI, which many people term "debt trap diplomacy," to help assure her people's future.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo recently concluded a tour of Africa where he offered US investment as an alternative to Chinese loans; that is, mutual effort as opposed to a one-sided lender-debtor relationship. This is a priority for the United States, Bangladesh should seize it.

Against the backdrop of recent riots in the Indian capital of Delhi around India's Citizenship Amendment Act, signal Bangladesh's desire to help ease intercommunal tensions, based on an understanding that minorities face challenges in all the countries of what was once British India.

There is good reason why the Modi government felt it important to pass a law that provides a refuge for Hindus and others from surrounding countries; and that while Bangladesh is committed in its basic principles to protecting people of all faith, it also recognizes that neither the Indian nor Bangladeshi governments are engaging in these actions themselves.

There is a solution with which Bangladesh can help itself and India; and it lies in a comprehensive effort that focuses on concrete actions while eliminating the legacy of "divide and conquer colonialism" that continues to fuel the violence.

Like Bangladesh, India has a history of support for Palestinian aspirations. Yet, today, India has strong, robust, and mutually beneficial relationship with Israel. Few countries still maintain a one-sided policy with regard to the Middle East anymore.

In fact, Bangladesh is one of only eight Muslim-majority countries that have no level of relations with Israel; many of them are war-torn and unable to conduct coherent foreign policy (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen) or radical (Iran and Pakistan). Algeria, the seventh, is neither and might leave this dubious group after its new reformist government settles into office. While it's unlikely that Bangladesh would want to have the sort of full-throated relations enjoyed by India, Egypt, and others right away; there are a host of options that will enable slow testing of economic and other ties. It would strengthen ties with both the US and India and bring tangible results to the people of Bangladesh.

Since its birth, Bangladesh has been committed to democratic ideals. Unfortunately, things have not always worked out so well in practice. The US government funds and operates several agencies that can help with things like religious freedom, press freedom, and political freedom, which sometimes face attack in Bangladesh.

Asking for this help would not identify Bangladesh as un-democratic; quite the contrary. It shows that this democratic nation always looks for help to strengthen its democratic institutions.

Then there are potential initiatives for reduction of pollution, rodent elimination, water purification, and such that Bangladesh can offer to lead as part of regional efforts, further increasing cooperation with India. As an American who frequently is in this beautiful country, I can attest to how badly these initiatives are needed. Israel, by the way, can offer great technical help as well.

These are just some potential projects; there are more. They can help Bangladesh capitalize on the momentum generated by the American president's South Asian visit, and give Bangladesh options with which to move forward. As a capitalist, I know that options and competition will serve to get the best for the people of Bangladesh. And as always, I offer my good offices to help in any way.

The writer is an American scholar and a geopolitical analyst

Stop allowing the persecution of minorities!

by Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Originally published February 26, 2020 in The Daily Asian Age (Dhaka)

https://dailyasianage.com/news/220439/stop-allowing-the-persecution-of-minorities

Recently, US Senator Charles Grassley sparked an angry response when he called out Bangladesh as a country where religious freedom is not respected in fact. As is so often the case, the Bangladeshi response focused on formal laws and such but ignored the reality on the ground. 

Senator Grassley is the President Pro Tem of the Senate, which makes him fourth in line for Presidential succession, as well as chairman of the powerful Senate Committee on Finance, which can have an impact on Bangladesh's economy.

The Bangladeshi response, by the way, might have meant something for domestic consumption here, but I can assure you that it convinced no one that things are fine for minorities in Bangladesh.

Fighting the ethnic cleansing of Bangladesh's Hindus is and has been an emotional and strategic roller coaster.  When I first started in 2007, people told me that "no one cares, no one ever will care"; and for a time, it looked like they might be right.  But that sort of human rights action is a marathon, not a sprint; and the fact that the struggle continues 13 years later should not obscure how close we might be getting to a resolution. 

For years, the BNP government refused to let me in the country because of my work.  The interim caretaker and military that followed let me in once or twice but otherwise blocked me. 

And at first, the Awami League government refused to let me in but later ended the ban.  That more open attitude reached its zenith this year when the government gave me a five-year visa, which I find a positive sign for our being able to work together, end the persecution, and make things better for all parties.

Regardless, the persecution of Bangladesh's Hindus remains a serious problem that is getting more and more international attention, which I will get to in a bit. 

In 1951, Pakistan held its first census after the massive population transfers that accompanied partition.  It found that Hindus accounted for a little less than a third of the East Pakistan population.  When East Pakistan became Bangladesh in 1971, they were just under a fifth. 

After 30 years of Bangladeshi rule, they were less than a tenth; and today's estimates have them hovering somewhere close to one in 15.Professor Sachi Dastidar of the State University of New York, using demographic data, estimates that the Bangladesh census is missing about 5 crore Hindus due to murder, forced conversion, and forced emigration.  Some people might want to argue about how or why it happened.  The fact is that it happened; and based on documented cases and fleeing population, it still is. 

Bangladeshi cabinet ministers, ambassadors, and other officials have reacted angrily to the data and even questions about what the government is doing about it.  Some responded with silly excuses, my favorite coming from one high official who said that the Hindu "population has gone down because Hindus leave Bangladesh for India for better matches for their children."

During all those years when Bangladeshi governments refused to let me in the country, I spent my time with Bangladeshi Hindu refugees, and not one of them ever said they fled their country so their children would have better marriage prospects.  Those responses hurt Bangladesh's credibility, and not just with me. 

Quite a few lawmakers and staff in Washington shared their derisive opinions of former Bangladeshi officials in Washington.  When I would get these excuses, it always seemed that the official figured that all Americans get their information from the movies and are naïve enough to believe anything they said.

They ultimately found out otherwise as my Capitol Hill allies and I showed them extensive evidence of how Hindus and Hinduism are being eliminated in Bangladesh.While you might or might not consider the United States worthy of being a moral arbiters, in the practical world of geo-politics, they're critical to the Bangladeshi economy and the economic miracle that is today's Bangladesh. 

One of my great pleasures last year was reading mind-boggling growth figures for Bangladesh during my presentation at a Daily Asian Age seminar.   But what would happen to all that if Bangladesh's biggest customer started buying their garments from Latin American countries because companies did not want to be associated with these human rights atrocities and the government's refusal to do anything about them; or because President Trump levied tariffs that made them no longer competitive because of these human rights issues? 

And don't expect China to pick up the slack.  Even before the coronavirus ravaged their economy, it was in serious trouble.  Even at their best, the Chinese are great at selling you stuff, but not much on buying.

In any given week, we receive multiple reports of atrocities against Hindus.  For me to accept one, I either have to confirm it personally or have it confirmed by at least two independent witnesses.  Once I do, they now are going to the US State Department and some of America's most powerful lawmakers, including those with authority over trade and foreign aid. 

Another area currently under review is Bangladesh's participation in UN Peacekeeping, which is funded by US taxpayers far more than anyone else.  If Bangladesh cannot keep the peace at home, those police and soldiers would do better to stay at home, though it would mean the loss of millions of dollars every month.

Late last month one lawmaker, Congressman Brad Schneider from the Chicago area,considered the situation so serious that he was about to take the extraordinary step of going himself to Washington's Bangladeshi embassy until scheduling conflicts forced the parties to find another date and time.

Despite the delay, Bangladeshi officials should understand that this member of the powerful US House Committee Ways and Means, which controls financial and trade legislation, will not relent in his determination to deal with this matter.

As the evidence of human rights abuses against Hindus in Bangladesh continued to accumulate, I have counseled Bangladeshi leaders to formally recognize the problem and be part of the solution.  For Bangladesh has a lot of goodwill in the world.  Your War of Independence is seen as a noble struggle by a great people.

  The fact that the immediate event sparking it was Pakistan's attempt to overturn the legitimate electoral will of the Bengali people strengthens the belief that it was about democracy and freedom; about equal justice for all.  It's an inspiring chapter in world history that touches the best in us all. 

The murder of as many as three million innocents, massive use of rape to attack the Bengali gene pool, and targeted execution of intellectuals and others was a tragedy that the world should recognize as the attempted genocide it was.  That Hindus might face a similar fate in Bangladesh now, does not fit with the nation's carefully cultivated image around the world, which is changing as a result.

Even under the Awami League, long considered a party with affection for minorities, there were targeted anti-Hindu actions at the rate of one and a half per week during its first term in office.  And they were only those atrocities I was able to confirm myself.  Decision-makers are aware that the actual number is much higher.

Unlike nations like Pakistan, identified in Senator Grassley's statement, Bangladesh does not carry out these atrocities itself-even though we have proof of participation in the atrocities and their cover ups by individual members of the government.  More people see it as equally guilty, however, because Bangladeshi governments (of all parties and factions) refused to prosecute the atrocities or punish the perpetrators, sending a clear message that if you commit these crimes against Hindus, nothing will happen to you. 

When police and government officials tried to tell me that "the same thing happens to the majority community," such arguments fell flat.  I asked them for the last time a group of Hindus destroyed a mosque, and the government did nothing; or the last time a Muslim child was abducted and forcibly converted.  No one ever produced a single example.

After a police official posted guards at a threatened Mandir while I was here last year, he was transferred for it, and his successor has not renewed the protection.  I have given reams of evidence of crimes to former cabinet ministers and ambassadors who promised to "take care of it personally," but never once received a response.

Time might be running out for a solution that does not put Bangladesh in the same human rights category as Pakistan.  India, too, has recognized the problem by including Bangladeshi Hindus as a group protected by the recent citizenship laws.

Here is my suggestion.  Bangladesh's diplomats in Washington are top-notch, bright, and quite savvy about the different ways things might get done.

  Even when we disagree, there always is mutual respect.  I suggest that they, along with my good offices, and perhaps the assistance of the Bangladesh International Mediation Society, hammer out a solution that protects all Bangladeshis, assures that the rule of law is applied equally to all citizens, and secures Bangladesh's place among the great nations of the world.  We can do it.  The solution is there.  All we need is the authority.

In the end, what happens is up to the Bangladeshis themselves-not the US or China or the British Raj.  The nation's leaders will have to decide if they want to continue gambling that people will ignore these atrocities and continue to fund the economy responsible for them; or take the lead in solving this increasingly known human rights tragedy.


The writer is an American scholar and a geopolitical analyst

Namaste Trump!

by Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Originally published February 24, 2020 in The Daily Asian Age (Dhaka)

https://dailyasianage.com/news/219993/namaste-trump

Last September, the US saw the largest gathering ever for a foreign leader on its soil when more than 50,000 Indian-origin Americans and NRIs gathered in Houston, Texas, to see and hear Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.  The event was termed, "Howdy Modi," and even US President Donald Trump made sure to be there.

This week in Ahmedabad, India, Modi intends to return the favor with "Namaste Trump," and both the city and nation are wildly excited about it.  While much of the excitement is about the "bromance" between the two men, the two savvy leaders are making sure that the trip will be about a lot more.

The bromance—a non-romantic, non-sexual relationship between two men who have a great deal of personal fondness for each other—is real and contributes to the two leaders being able to work out their differences and maximize their common interests.

For instance, while each of them is committed to putting their respective nations first, that fondness has enabled them to find common ground despite resulting trade and other conflicting interests.  Trump was one of the first world leaders to congratulate Modi on his re-election, and Modi was the first to congratulate Trump on his election.

Trade will be a big part of the visit, however, merely focusing on that alone only highlights the importance of the geopolitically significant US-India relationship.  One would expect that Modi's "Make in India" initiatives and Trump's focus on America first economics, would pretty much scuttle cooperation between the two nations, which makes it highly significant that the two countries find so much on which to agree.

It also shows that these two men can keep their egos in check and maintain focus on what is really importance.  Some Indian media outlets are predicting as many as five agreements coming out of President Trump's visit.  Two likely ones are India's $2.6 million purchase of 24 Seahawk helicopters; and the US giving India a pass on duties and tariffs for a specific period in return.

Media and self-styled experts enjoy finding problems in general and with these two leaders in particular, and have minimized the value of the visit, one terming it "window dressing."

But if these experts have been consistent in anything, it has been in underestimating both leaders.  Regardless of conflicting interests, there will be a much greater geopolitical issue looming largely over the two men's discussions:  China.  No matter what other differences the US and India might have, their shared determination to strengthen India as a counterbalance to Chinese expansionism will overcome all of them.

  In fact, looking down the line, it is more likely that both Trump and Modi want to make India the premier superpower in Asia.  To be realistic, they all won't be overcome during this particular visit.  Modi and Trump are both tough and disciplined negotiators.  But eventually, the China factor will be the glue keeping the two men, and the two countries together for a long time.

China has attacked US and Indian interests on a range of fronts in the past decade, perhaps none as cynical as in its attitude toward the countries victimized by its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), more popularly known as China's "debt trap diplomacy." 

By now, even the least savvy borrower is aware of BRI's wreckage in Montenegro and its seizure of ports in Sri Lanka (Hambantota) and Pakistan-occupied Balochistan (Gwadar); but they might not be aware of all the restrictions debtor nations live under because of BRI. 

Take Pakistan, for example, a country formed specifically as an Islamic Republic, whose China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is considered BRI's crown jewel.  Yet, it has been effectively muzzled from making even the slightest comment about China's horrific persecution of its Uyghur Muslims.

The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been forced to remain a silent spectator to China's anti-Muslim repression.  Force feeding them pork and putting over a million in high tech concentration camps is only one part of China's anti-Muslim policy (a policy important enough for China to have put it directly under the all-powerful Politburo).

Muslims are under constant surveillance and, according to the BBC, can be imprisoned for growing a long beard, making an international call, or browsing the internet.  While Pakistan recently canceled some BRI contracts, it likely is too little too late.

CPEC has cemented its subservience to China.  More than a third of all BRI debtor nations were found to be at "high risk" for debt servicing problems, and eight (including Pakistan) were considered to be at especially serious risk by the Center for Global Development.

Beyond that-and here is where Trump and Modi come back into the conversation-BRI has never really been about infrastructure as advertised.  Rather, it exists to further China's ambitions to anchor its geopolitical aim to outflank the US and India.  In fact, surrounding and "containing" India has been an element of Chinese foreign policy for decades.  A strong US-India relationship is the best way to defeat that and maintain the independence of all SAARC nations.

Add to that the fact that Trump and Modi share a similar political and economic philosophy, both being proud capitalists and believers in the free market, and there might be no better way to prove its capitalism's superiority than to defeat the still state-managed economy of Communist China.  Both leaders also are fighting opposition to their efforts to control their nations' borders and stop illegal immigration, and both also face unrelenting attacks from their political left.

There is no better way to silence their opponents than with economic and geopolitical success.  Modi already won a landslide victory last year, and all predictions point to a Trump victory in November.  Taken together, that is why the Trump-Modi relationship and the impending Namaste Trump visit have been greeted with such high expectations.

Ahmedabad is getting a serious facelift ahead of President Trump's arrival, which is something I have fun contemplating since Ahmedabad is the first place I got to know Narendra Modi when he was Gujarat's Chief Minister.  (I recall telling him years ago: "Today, I call you 'Mr. Chief Minister.'  But one day I will call you 'Mr. Prime Minister'.")  That relationship helped me give direction to my work in South Asia, and I always will be grateful for Prime Minister Modi's long support for my efforts to stop the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Bangladesh.

Even those of us who believe we have some sort of "special insight" or "inside information" can do little more than speculate on how many military, economic, and geopolitical agreements will come out of the Modi-Trump get-together.  The only things that are certain are that the two men will renew one of the great relationships among world leaders and that the visit will be a gala of an event that people will be talking about for a long time to come.


The writer is an American scholar and geopolitical analyst

What's really happening with India's NRC/CAA

by Dr. Richard L. Benkin

Originally published February 22, 2020 in The Daily Asian Age (Dhaka)

https://dailyasianage.com/news/219706/whats-really-happening-with-indias-nrccaa

Pretty much worldwide, but especially in South Asia, people react to events and the people on either side of conflicts with more emotion than analysis.  My role often is providing some analysis for people to consider—maybe accept it, maybe reject it, maybe think about and alter it.

Perhaps no issue is generating more heat and less light these days than India's National Registry of Citizens/Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 (NRC/CAA).  As someone who has been fighting for persecuted minorities in surrounding countries, I applaud the law's providing a safe having for them.

I just landed in Bangladesh after a four-week residency in Silchar, Assam, with the Northeast India Company and Gurucharan College.  While there and since, I heard the expected hyperbole from both sides of the NRC/CAA debate; people who love it, and people who hate it.

But love and hate are two strong emotions, and emotion is a poor basis for analysis.  Partisans on both sides traffic in scare tactics, trying to get their supporters worked up over a potential disaster if their side does not prevail.  The law's supporters say that it's necessary for India to control its borders and stop the decades-long flood of illegal migrants; without it, they say, the nation will lose its very character. 

The law's opponents, on the other hand, liken NRC/CAA to Nazi Germany's Nuremberg Laws that set the groundwork for the Holocaust; and warn that that law will lead inexorably to the expulsion of 20 percent of India's populace.  Those latter positions are on display in the extreme at the Shaheen Bagh protests, which have been going strong since 15 December of last year.  Emotions are running high.

However, after spending considerable time in Assam, which is ground zero for this law, as it is the only Indian state to attempt its implementation; it is clear from an on-the-ground perspective that both sets of partisans are fear merchants more than anything else.  And that's a shame because the issues that they both champion could hardly be more important.  Back to reality.

Let's take the first group of fear merchants who warn of mass deportations and an end to democratic India.  Citizens in Assam tell me that the whole thing is a mess. They recount examples of children on the list and their parents not, as well as parents on the list and their children not.  Even a former Indian President is not on the rolls.  Does anyone really believe that the Modi government will placidly accept a terribly flawed system implementation and let the chips fall where they may?  (If they do, they do not know Prime Minister Narendra Modi.)

Do they really believe that India will forcibly deport its former President?  And who would do the deporting?  The military?  How many of them would find themselves off the list?  Moreover, the logistics in forcibly removing one fifth of the entire Indian population would be a nightmare beyond the capacity of any nation.  The numbers would exceed by ten to 20 times the entire population transfer at the time of Indian Partition.

It would be greater than the entire population of Bangladesh!   If implementation is so faulty in Assam, which is India's fourteenth smallest state, representing only two and a half percent of the nation's population; imagine what it would be like across the entire country. So, even if we concede the hyperbole of loudest voices against the bill, which I do not, their fears are unwarranted.

If indeed the NRC/CAA is discriminatory, that will be determined by the courts.  The law is being challenged in front of the Supreme Court right now, and I recently participated in an Impleading on the challenge.  That challenge alleges that NRC/CAA violates Part III of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

It alleges that all illegal migrants represent one class and treating any subset of it differently violates the Constitution.  Will that argument sway the justices?  The Indian Supreme Court has a stellar reputation internationally and is known for its independence.  If the violation is there, it will rule as such.  My own belief is that NRC/CAA will take much the same path taken by US President Donald Trump's travel ban.

The law's opponents decried it as a "Muslim ban," which is in fairness what Candidate Trump promised during the election.  And indeed the US Supreme Court reaffirmed US democracy and struck it down as unconstitutional and discriminatory.

The ban went through several iterations before it passed muster with the court and the Constitution.  It's in force today in a way that carries out its intended function within the confines of equal justice, and includes 13 countries, split almost evenly between Muslim-majority nations and others.

On the other side, even if the law was implemented fairly and flawlessly, it still would not solve India's problem with illegal immigrants.  It does not address the porous borders adjacent to Uttar Pradesh, Assam, and West Bengal.  It does not do anything about the corruption that motivates border police to look the other way when people come into the country illegally; a matter I addressed twice, once on the Nepal border at Panitanki and again on the Bangladesh border with Meghalaya.

In both cases, Indian border guards remained passive to illegal crossings and only took action—to confront me —when they saw that I was documenting their negligence.  Israel presents a good example of a comprehensive approach.  The tiny nation had a serious problem with illegal migration.

The migrants came from challenged circumstances in Africa, trekked from their homes, through Egypt, to the Sinai, then across Israel's southern border.  While Israelis have a great deal of sympathy for the migrants, their numbers were straining the state's resources.  So Israel built a wall, and the number of migrants decreased by 99 percent.  While the barrier did have a significant impact, it was not entirely responsible for the success.

Israel also implemented other measures, such as imprisoning illegal migrants before deporting them and adding technological elements to its border control.  To really get on top of illegal immigration, India will have to do more than the NRC/CAA.

Thus, there are very real problems involved with addressing illegal migration and maintaining the values of a nation's constitution and values, be it India, Israel, or Bangladesh; and the Assam example emphasizes their extent.  Unfortunately, the anger, name calling, and hyperbole, much of which is pure fantasy, do not help us tackle them.

The first step is for all sides to recognize that every nation has the right, in fact the duty to its citizens, to control its borders and regulate who can and cannot enter.  The second is for people on all sides of the issue to identify the actual issues and come to a consensus.  And the third is to test those solutions against the principles of the nation's Constitution.

The writer is an American scholar and a geopolitical analyst