After India cut ties, Turkey-backed group in Bangladesh circulates map showing..., Posters feature...
Why attacking Turkey means attacking US? This is why this Muslim country became powerful...
New Delhi: After the Modi government severed ties with Turkey over its support for Pakistan across various sectors—including security, aviation, education, and trade—Turkey has now shifted its focus to Bangladesh, where it is now actively working to replicate its Pakistan-style engagement model.
According to an Economic Times report quoting sources, an alleged Turkish NGO-backed Islamist group has come up in Dhaka under the banner 'Saltanat-e-Bangla'. The group has published a map promoting 'Greater Bangladesh' that includes Myanmar's Arakan State, Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha, and the entire Northeast region of India
Posters featuring the map have reportedly been displayed in university halls across Dhaka and other areas popular among youth and students. Notably, some individuals previously aligned with the Yunus regime have expressed support for the idea of integrating India's northeastern states into Bangladesh.
It is important to note that ever since Muhammad Yunus took charge of the Bangladesh government, Turkey has increased its engagement through proposed military supplies to the Bangladesh armed forces.
Turkish NGOs aligned with the ruling AKP have also grown increasingly active in Bangladesh, with Pakistan allegedly playing a role in bringing the two countries closer since August last year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
33 minutes ago
- News18
Disbanding Awami League Could Lead To Identity Crisis For Bangladesh
Last Updated: Awami League led a long political struggle for Bangladesh's emancipation. By rejecting this legacy, Bangladesh might end up shooting itself in the foot On May 10, 2025, the interim government in Bangladesh further amended the International Crimes (Tribunals) Act, 1973 through ordinance no. 20, 2025. It thus authorised the tribunal to suspend and prohibit the activities of any political party (including its front organisations), cancel its registration and confiscate its property if found guilty of aiding, inciting or conspiring in any crimes mentioned in the statute. The Yunus administration, however, was unwilling to wait for the tribunal's verdict. On the same day, it hastily announced a ban on all activities of Awami League, pending the disposal of cases against it. On May 8, the Yunus administration had created a second three-member tribunal with former High Court judge Nazrul Islam Chowdhury as its chairman. The existing three-member tribunal under Justice Mohammed Ghulam Murtaza Mazumdar has been re-designated as International Crimes Tribunal-I (ICT-I). The interim government has redefined the objective of the tribunal, established on March 25, 2010. Its original purpose was to prosecute and punish those guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity during the Bangladesh Liberation War, 1971. A second tribunal was created on March 22, 2012 to expedite pending trials, but the two were merged on September 15, 2015, after the caseload decreased significantly. The tribunal was essentially created by Sheikh Hasina's administration (though its conception dates back to her father Mujibur Rahman's government). Ironically, she now finds herself subject to its scrutiny. There was initial disagreement on whether approximately 1,400 lives lost in police firing during anti-quota protests (15 July to 5 August 2024) constituted genocide. The father of a student belonging to Students Against Discrimination filed a complaint with the ICT against nine people, including deposed Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Professor Asif Nazrul, Advisor on Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs in the interim government, opined that the July killings qualified for trial by the tribunal. The tribunal had previously ruled that crimes against humanity need not be specific to war. Banning political parties is not new in Bangladesh. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman initiated this practice. Not content with Awami League's overwhelming majority (307 out of 315 seats) in Bangladesh's first general election (March 7, 1973), Mujib amended the 1972 Constitution on January 25, 1975, changing the government from parliamentary to presidential. Mujib, as Marcus Franda (1982) states, 'was vested with all executive power and authorized to declare Bangladesh as a one-party state. In subsequent months he abolished all political parties, stripped the supreme court of its powers to enforce fundamental rights, created special courts and tribunals directly answerable to him, and closed down all but four daily newspapers (two in English, and two in Bengali). All four of the newspapers that were allowed to exist were either government or party owned". (Bangladesh: The First Decade, p. 55). On June 6, 1975, 40 days before his assassination in a coup, Mujib formally ended multiparty democracy in Bangladesh by establishing one-party rule under Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League (BKSAL). Bangladesh subsequently fell under the rule of military dictators General Ziaur Rahman and General H.M. Ershad, who governed for 15 years combined. In the last 50 years, Bangladesh has experienced coups, military dictatorships, controversial elections, political violence, and attempts to create an Islamist state. Even the two-party democracy in place since 1991 devolved into confrontational politics, often dubbed the 'battle of the Begums". In 2007, under the caretaker government of President Iajuddin Ahmed, a controversial 'minus two" formula was devised to restore democracy by excluding both Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khaleda Zia from politics. Both leaders were arrested. This unpopular formula faced backlash and was abandoned. It resurfaced recently when BNP General Secretary Mirza Fakhrul Islam Alamgir mentioned it disapprovingly. III Both Sheikh Mujib and Sheikh Hasina exhibited authoritarian tendencies, seeking to eliminate political opponents. Their personalities often overshadowed the party itself. However, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has demonstrated similar tendencies. When in power (e.g., 1991-96 and 2001-06), the BNP attempted to manipulate elections, leading to the introduction of caretaker governments, demonstrating the immaturity of Bangladeshi democracy. Yet, banning Awami League is different. It threatens Bangladesh's identity. Ahmed Sofa (1943-2001), the late Bangladeshi essayist, poet and public intellectual, suggested that while Awami League's triumph might signify the victory of a few leaders, its defeat represents a loss for all of Bangladesh (Bangali Musalmaner Mon, p. 17). This is due to the party's historical roots in the struggle of the people of East Bengal. Sofa acknowledged Awami League's shortcomings, including its superficial secularism, which he considered a political tool incapable of addressing obscurantism and dogmatism within Muslim society, hindering Bangladesh's social progress. Nevertheless, Awami League spearheaded nation-building in East Pakistan, culminating in Bangladesh's independence. Founded as Awami Muslim League Party on 23 June 1949 under Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani (1880-1976), its initial leadership comprised dissidents from the Pakistan Muslim League (formerly All India Muslim League). Before partition, the All India Muslim League prioritised the creation of Pakistan, neglecting governance issues that later plagued the new state. The party became an exclusive clique, restricting membership, which fuelled discord. The East Pakistan Awami Muslim League (estd. 1949) was among several dissident parties emerging from the Muslim League. By the end of 1949, according to Shyamali Ghosh (1990), around 20 opposition parties existed in Pakistan, including 13 in Punjab, eight formed by dissident Muslim Leaguers (The Awami League 1949-1971, p. 2). The Awami Muslim League's influence grew. In the 1954 provincial elections, its alliance with the Krishak Sramik Party, led by A.K. Fazlul Huq, and other smaller parties, campaigning on a 21-point demand (commemorating the Bengali language martyrs of 21 February 1952), decisively defeated the Muslim League, which secured only nine seats compared to the United Front's 229. The United Front's manifesto, essentially Awami Muslim League's charter of demands, was condensed from 42 to 21 points by journalist and lawyer Abul Mansur Ahmad. 'Neither in the manifesto of Awami League nor in that of Krishak Sramik Party", notes Justice Muhammad Munir (1979), 'was there any reference to Islam or the Quran and Sunnah" (From Jinnah to Zia, p. xvii). At its Dacca session from October 21-23, 1955, Awami Muslim League dropped 'Muslim" from its name. The Awami League (1956) advocated for abolishing separate electorates, a colonial legacy. Prime Minister H.S. Suhrawardy, leading a coalition of Awami League and the Republican Party, piloted the Joint Electorate Bill on 10 October 1956. Joint electorates were introduced in East Pakistan, but separate electorates remained in the west, highlighting Pakistan's internal divisions. 'In spite of economic backwardness", comments Badruddin Umar, 'East Bengal was an advanced region in respect of social, cultural and political developments. Owing to its cultural and political backwardness and predominantly feudal composition of leadership in West Pakistan they cling to old prejudices" (The Emergence of Bangladesh Vol-1, p. 329). On 3 April 1957, the East Pakistan Legislative Assembly adopted a resolution on regional autonomy, moved by Mohiuddin Ahmad of Awami League and addressed by his party colleague and United Front minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Mujib described regional autonomy as crucial for East Bengal. The resolution demanded full autonomy for East Pakistan except for currency, foreign affairs, and defence, which would remain with the Centre. Mujib elaborated on regional autonomy and democracy in his booklet 'Six-Point Formula — Our Right to Live" (March 1966), published during Field Marshal Ayub Khan's military dictatorship (1958-69) after the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War. This Six-Point Formula became Awami League's programme. Ayub Khan attempted to implicate Mujib in the Agartala Conspiracy Case (1968), alleging collusion with India to divide Pakistan. However, he withdrew the case under pressure from public agitation in East Pakistan, compounded by his precarious position in West Pakistan. The 1969 agitations in East Bengal foreshadowed the 1971 uprising. Awami League thus prepared the ground for Bangladesh's independence. It won 167 of 169 East Bengal seats in the 1970 National Assembly elections (total strength 313). Whether Bangladesh would have emerged if Yahya Khan had allowed Mujib to become Prime Minister is debatable. However, the March 1971 uprising demonstrated East Bengal's determination to achieve sovereignty, with or without Mujib, who was imprisoned in Mianwali jail in West Pakistan. top videos View all Awami League's governance has been authoritarian at times, but so has that of the BNP and General Ershad. In a democracy, parties naturally cycle in and out of power. However, banning Awami League creates an identity crisis for Bangladesh. Denying its historical heritage could lead the nation in unpredictable directions. The writer is the author of 'The Microphone Men: How Orators Created a Modern India' (2019) and an independent researcher based in New Delhi. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely that of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 11, 2025, 14:32 IST News opinion Opinion | Disbanding Awami League Could Lead To Identity Crisis For Bangladesh
India Gazette
43 minutes ago
- India Gazette
"Modi at G7 a chance to reset India-Canada ties amid Khalistan tensions": Canadian podcaster Josh Udall
Ontario [Canada], June 11 (ANI): As Prime Minister Narendra Modi participates in the G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Canada, from June 15 to 17, his presence signifies more than just India's growing global influence -- it presents an opportunity to reset and redefine bilateral relations between India and Canada, says Canadian political commentator and podcaster Josh Udall. Udall, who applies his expertise in behavioural research and political analysis to Canadian public discourse, sees this moment as pivotal -- not just for economic diplomacy, but also for confronting longstanding irritants in the relationship, especially the issue of Khalistani extremism. In an exclusive interview, Udall dissected the complexities and political undercurrents shaping the evolving dynamic between Ottawa and New Delhi. According to Udall, Prime Minister Modi's visit to the G7 -- where he's likely to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney -- offers Canada a critical opening to move past the chill that marked Indo-Canadian relations under Justin Trudeau. 'Mark Carney is the economic guy. He's the one you call in a crisis,' Udall noted, pointing out that Carney's chief interest is revitalising Canada's economic relationships, particularly beyond the shadow of the United States. India is now the world's fourth-largest economy. It only makes sense to pursue a strong trade partnership with them,' he said. Udall emphasised that Carney's push for economic ties is not rooted in any deep understanding of the Indo-Canadian political baggage, especially the divisive Khalistan issue. 'There's very little political will in Canada to address the Khalistani extremism that India is concerned about,' he said, underscoring the wide gap between Canadian public perception and Indian security priorities. Udall was candid about the domestic ignorance surrounding the Khalistan issue in Canada. 'Most Canadians have no idea,' he said. 'They've heard snippets on CBC or CTV, maybe remember something about Trudeau accusing India of killing a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil, but they don't understand the long and complicated history.' He added that Khalistani narratives dominate Canadian media, with little to no Hindu or Indian nationalist representation providing a counterbalance. 'It's mostly Khalistani voices getting airtime,' he observed. 'That dangerously shapes public perception.' The result, according to Udall, is a skewed understanding of India as an interfering foreign power. 'To Canadians, India is starting to feel like the new Russia -- accused of meddling in elections and domestic politics,' he said. This, he argues, makes it nearly impossible to garner domestic support for India's long-pending demand to extradite 26 fugitives linked to extremist activities. Given this context, Udall believes that the burden of advocacy rests squarely on Prime Minister Modi. 'If Modi wants movement on the Khalistan issue or extradition demands, he's going to have to tie those to economic incentives. That's the only language that might move Carney,' he said. Udall was clear-eyed about the challenge. 'Carney doesn't know the history, and he won't prioritise it unless it's linked to something he values -- namely, trade. Modi has to make that case clearly and strategically.' The situation is further complicated by Canada's domestic political landscape. 'Carney will see the protests from Sikh groups against Modi's visit, and he will dismiss them. That's his style. But unless there is pressure from voters or political consequences, don't expect him to act on India's security concerns.' One of the most significant shifts, Udall points out, is the political transition from Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh to Mark Carney's administration. He believes this creates a rare moment for recalibration. 'Trudeau's stance toward India was heavily influenced by domestic alliances, particularly with the NDP and Jagmeet Singh,' he said. 'There were alleged associations between Singh and pro-Khalistan groups, and that coloured Trudeau's approach to India.' Now, with both Trudeau and Singh out of the picture, Udall sees a clean slate. 'Carney's gesture of inviting Modi is a sign: let's forget the past and focus on mutual benefit,' he said. 'It's a soft restart -- an olive branch.' For Udall, the G7 Summit marks a watershed moment. 'What happens at this meeting will dictate the course of India-Canada relations,' he asserted. 'If Modi and Carney strike the right tone, it could initiate a slow but steady thaw.' However, Udall warns that any progress will be incremental. 'This won't be a one-meeting fix. It's going to be a long game for both leaders. Modi wants action on extremism; Carney wants trade. They'll have to negotiate those interests delicately.' He also suggests that even if the bilateral dialogue doesn't immediately yield results on extradition or security concerns, just opening consistent communication lines is a win. 'Diplomacy is momentum. If this meeting goes well, it builds trust. And from trust comes progress.' As Prime Minister Modi engages with world leaders at the G7, his interactions with Canada could mark a turning point in a relationship that has long teetered between cooperation and confrontation. Josh Udall sums it up best: 'This is a pivotal moment. Both sides need something -- India wants a crackdown on extremism; Canada wants new trade partners. If they can meet halfway, it'll be a major win for both democracies.' Whether this G7 meeting becomes a footnote or a foundation stone remains to be seen. But one thing is clear -- after years of tension, India and Canada finally have an opportunity to rebuild. (ANI)
India Gazette
43 minutes ago
- India Gazette
11 years of Modi govt full of lies, unfulfilled promises: Rajasthan LoP Tika Ram Jully
Jaipur (Rajasthan) [India], June 11 (ANI): On the 11th anniversary of the Modi government, Tika Ram Jully, leader of the Opposition in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, slammed the government, saying that the past 11 years have been filled with lies, mislead, and harassment of the common man. Jully criticised the government for failing to fulfil its promises, including providing 2 crore jobs every year, depositing Rs 15 lakh in people's accounts, bringing back black money, cleaning the River Ganga, and making diesel, petrol, and LPG cheaper. While speaking to ANI on Wednesday, Jully said, 'Look, the 11 years of Modi ji have been full of lies, misleading the public, harassing the common man. The promises made to the public, whether it is the promise of giving 2 crore jobs every year, or the promise of depositing 15 lakhs in the accounts, or the promise of bringing back black money within 100 days, or the talk of cleaning the Ganga Maayya, or the talk of making diesel, petrol and LPG cheaper, or the talk of making the dollar equal to the rupee. Or the talk of ending corruption and terrorism, all remained unfulfilled. Whether it is doubling the income of farmers, giving concrete houses to every poor, hundreds of such promises were made by Modi ji, none of which were fulfilled. Not even one came to reality.' The Leader of Opposition in Rajasthan also questioned the government's focus on 2047, saying that the public had given them only 5 years to work. 'Now they have started talking about who has seen 2047. The public had given you 5 years; you have to work within that. Today, you have started talking about 2047, but the public did not give you the opportunity to 2047. Tell us your action plan for the next 5 years, so that the public gets relief,' Jully demanded. Julie further criticised the government's foreign policy, citing Operation Sindoor and the treatment of Indians in the US. The LoP also praised Indira Gandhi's courage, implying that the current government lacks the same level of leadership. 'You saw Operation Sindoor, no country in the world stood with us. Modi ji did so many foreign trips in 11 years, despite that, not even a single country stood with us. Now our children who have gone to America they being treated like terrorists. Pakistan is getting support everywhere in the world, but people are not standing with us. This is a serious issue; only talk will not work, you will have to show it by working. One should have courage like Indira Gandhi ji,' he said. (ANI)
