‘The Dream is to Reform Bangladesh’: Can a New Leader Steer the Country Towards Democracy?

By Intifar Chowdhury

August 13, 2024

Source: The Conversation

Image by Fatima Tuj Johora/AP

When Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled in the face of a mass uprising last week, a power vacuum was left in the 170 million-person country.

After Hasina left the country, the army took over and swiftly established an interim government to steer Bangladesh towards free and fair elections within three months.

Amid hopes for genuine societal reform, however, people are still wary. Is the three-month timeline sufficient to transform a politically fraught Bangladesh into a substantive democracy that can resist sliding back into autocracy?
Bangladesh at a critical juncture

For the past 15 years, heavy-handed, one-party rule in Bangladesh has squeezed opposition parties out of the political system and deprived citizens of true democracy.

The breaking point came when nationwide, student-led protests against an unfair government job quota transformed into a defiant movement to oust Hasina.

The 84-year-old Nobel laureate and entrepreneur Muhammad Yunus has now been appointed head of the transitional government, bringing much-needed credibility and economic expertise to a fragile moment.

The interim government also includes rights activists, professors, lawyers, former government officials and prominent members of Bangladesh’s civil society. Promisingly, it includes two 26-year-old student leaders – Nahid Islam and Asif Mahmud. This move elevates young voices to a position of political decision-making.

Previously sidelined parties are getting back in the game, as well, such as the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami party. The public, however, has little appetite for these old players.

And the country that the interim government inherits is far from stable. High inflationary pressures, endemic corruption and the undermining of democratic institutions have left Bangladesh in an economic mess.

On the security front, Hasina’s departure has unleashed a wave of violence, with attacks on Bangladesh’s Hindu minority population, in addition to looting and arson attacks around the country.

Yunus now shoulders the weight of a nation’s hopes, facing monumental expectations of uniting a fractured society, restoring the economy and reestablishing law and order.
Caretaker government: toothless or transformative?

The interim government will likely try to steer the country towards significant constitutional reform, either by drafting a new constitution or amending the existing one.

But the very existence of an interim government – let alone exercising power to amend the constitution – is unconstitutional in and of itself.

Following the 15th constitutional amendment enacted in 2011, the current constitution no longer provides for caretaker governments. This creates a legal paradox, even though the interim government’s role in addressing the current crisis is widely seen as necessary.

Another critical decision facing the caretaker regime is when to hold elections. The constitution mandates a three-month deadline, but if the interim government rushes into an election, it likely won’t begin to resolve any of the underlying issues that led to the protests.

Legal experts have recommended delaying the elections to allow more time for essential political reforms.

One of the most vital tasks is restoring the independence of vital institutions, including the election commission.

Under Hasina, the parliament acted merely as a rubber stamp, the civil service and judiciary were deeply politicised and the media and civil society were tightly controlled. While some institutions may quickly thrive in a more open environment, others will bear the scars of the past for years.

Amtul Chowdhury, a 28-year-old lawyer in District and Session Judges Court in Chittagong, told me the interim government shouldn’t be bound by the existing constitution. She views it as a problematic document in need of reform – a task the caretaker government lacks the parliamentary power to enact.

Instead of rushing to call an election within 90 days, the focus should be on restoring law and order, freeing the judiciary from political biases, and ensuring its independence to uphold the rule of law. Right now, the judicial system is rotten.

According to Chowdhury, more time is required to create space for new, visionary political parties to emerge.

If our only choices are the old political parties we’re unhappy with, there will never be any real reform.

Looking forward

Bangladesh has seen this cycle of political turmoil before – autocrats or governments forced out by popular uprisings, only to be replaced by regimes that ultimately fail to meet public expectations.

What is different this time around is the student-led movement was not carried out under the banner of a specific political party; its success was due to the neutrality and participation of all people.

As a student protester in the capital Dhaka told me,

After years of irregularities imposed by previous governments, rebuilding a progressive and fair system would require intensive support and collaboration among both the interim government and citizens of Bangladesh. [We need] to unlearn the toxic process that has been existing for decades and to relearn healthy and constructive ways of life for the betterment of our country.

Much of the transition to a substantive democracy will rely on the powerful sense of solidarity, hope and civic consciousness that the country’s youth has been embracing.

However, the challenges facing this generation are immense. The interim government, and any future leadership, must address the growing inequality in society and lack of employment opportunities for young people.

With nearly 40% of the population under 18, there is a pressing need to turn this demographic into an asset rather than a burden. Continued investment in the country’s youth is also essential for the government to move away from its past autocratic tendencies. And there’s no doubt that young people, given the chance, will give back to their country.

As my niece Arnaz Tariq, who is a 20-year-old Bangladeshi student at the University of Southern Mississippi in the US, told me:

The interim government needs to realise that since 1971, Bangladesh hasn’t really listened to its youth. We are ready to speak our minds, to be heard, and to be part of change-making. Our generation is connected to the world – we know the dream of a better government isn’t just a fantasy.

We have ideas that are in step with global standards, ideas that could transform our country into a place where the youth want to build their future, and not seek it elsewhere. The dream is to reform Bangladesh, not to leave it.

Opinion

Whither regime change in Bangladesh?

August 13, 2024 

Anti-government protestors display Bangladesh’s national flag as they storm Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s palace in Dhaka on August 5, 2024

 [KM ASAD/AFP via Getty Images]

LONG READ

by Junaid S. Ahmad

Recent events in Bangladesh have been momentous. The developments have sparked a stimulating debate about whether what has transpired is a popular and organic uprising, or if it is a Western-backed regime change engineered from outside.

Serious, robust and nuanced analyses have been rendered of the domestic causes of the popular uprising of, especially, young Bangladeshis, so it’s not necessary to rehash those here. What is at least as important, though, is to address the more contentious aspects of the disputed narrative(s).

The overthrown Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, suffered the same fate as many leaders whose popularity and legitimacy declined drastically. To rationalise her rule forever, Hasina banked on the fact that she is the daughter of the country’s heroic liberation leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. That may have worked at the beginning of her rule, but it certainly did not over the past few years.

Nevertheless, even if there was a loss of mass support in Bangladesh itself, was Hasina’s ouster propelled by veteran connoisseurs of Western-backed regime changes?

The paramount distinction helpful to understand the developments in Bangladesh is that between a foreign/domestic elite-engineered removal of a leader/political dispensation, against a bona fide mass movement which can be hijacked, disarmed and paralysed by powerful external and internal forces.


There are obviously numerous examples of the former.

Straightforward Washington-backed attempts at regime change via “colour revolutions” and local proxies happened in Ukraine in 2014, in Venezuela for over two decades and in Pakistan in 2022. In Caracas, such full-on Western efforts have, time and again, failed, at least so far. The desire to remove the “Chavista” movement, first with Chavez and latterly Maduro, has been rebuffed repeatedly by the popular defence of the socialist project in the country. No Washington-supported domestic elite or proxy forces have been able to deliver a definitive end to what many Venezuelans consider to be the country’s revolutionary process.

Pakistan in April 2022 was also different to Bangladesh in August 2024. The only similarity was the successful removal of the Prime Minister, Imran Khan. However, the dissimilarity is far more significant. In the ouster of Pakistan’s very popular cricketer-turned-politician, the US foreign policy establishment and Islamabad’s generals were the chief architects. The most astonishing aspect of the episode in response to the regime change was the historic mass uprising across Pakistan where, even though prime ministers have been deposed periodically, there has never been anything remotely like the nationwide demonstrations in defence of Khan. Past prime ministers and their political mafias, with the exception of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in the 1970s, were seen as offering no meaningful alternative to military rule. In fact, the military was mostly able to gain more legitimacy because the majority of Pakistanis regarded the officers and soldiers as far less corrupt and more professional than the political class.

Hence, senior officers in Islamabad, as well as Western capitals, were caught off guard by the mass and sustained defiance of their political shenanigans. Although not everyone in the protests were blind and uncritical supporters of Khan, they endured for over a year. They seemed unstoppable. And in most societies, they probably would be.

However, Pakistan has one of the most formidable militaries in the world, which is deployed scandalously and primarily to subjugate and terrorise the country’s own citizens. Being both mortified in front of its Western patrons and humiliated domestically by people power, the Pakistani military high command unleashed a reign of terror, including murder, torture and forced disappearances in May 2023. And the obstinate former prime minister faced the full wrath of the generals: Khan was jailed in a supermax-security prison far more wretched than those reserved for the worst terrorists. Even though Khan’s party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (the “Movement for Justice”), miraculously won the most parliamentary seats in February’s deeply-flawed elections — aka “general’s selections” — the fearless momentum of the popular revolt was stalled, at least temporarily.

In Bangladesh, the absence of pro-Hasina demonstrations after her removal had nothing to do with military repression of such sentiment. Over the past few months, the generals were anticipating that there would be significant divisions within the population on the matter of the prime minister’s popularity, or lack thereof. Such fault lines were simply not there.

We can see the manifestation of this outcome in the way that influential capitals have responded to Hasina’s pleas for asylum. She was barely able to cross the border to India, where she is not a welcome former head of state, but an uncomfortable refugee with nowhere to go. Even the ruling Indian elite, to which Hasina had rendered her undying loyalty, is uncomfortable with her presence in the country. If New Delhi can view one of their favoured rulers as a liability, everyone can.

India’s political elite has good reason to be unconcerned about Hasina at this point. There is widespread anger in India at the failure of the government to predict developments in its neighbour to the east; it was incapable of protecting Indian students and workers now stuck in Bangladesh and fearful of the situation after Hasina’s ouster.


Images circulating on social media show Indian intelligence personnel, omnipresent in various Bangladeshi ministries, especially in the security apparatus, fleeing for their lives.

Criticism of the government in New Delhi has become so fierce that it has had to issue one awkward statement after another in order to try to appease the public.

The “usual suspects” who seem to be the last refuge of oppressive and despised leaders on the run – Abu Dhabi, Riyadh, London, Washington – do not want anything to do with Hasina. That’s not because such “safe havens” have any principled objections to giving asylum to despots and puppets. The US, for example, has behaved more sympathetically to some of its proxy clients in Latin America. In 2023, for example, America’s preferred option to govern the stubbornly anti-imperialist Venezuelans, Juan Guaidó, was granted the right to go back to his patrons and call it quits. Of course, new imperial surrogates continue to be buttressed in Venezuela and elsewhere.

It is also essential to note that Bangladesh is not a small country, and it has some degree of popular democracy. It is not a petro-monarchy with a relatively small population, making its autocrats’ ability to flee and be forgotten about much less challenging.

Moreover, comparing Hasina’s plight with that of Imran Khan post-ouster is instructive. Hasina has nowhere to run, while Khan would have been welcomed in many countries around the world, especially in Euro-America. Pakistan’s generals had made the case to their foreign backers that the only prospect of effacing Khan from political life was to offer him asylum anywhere he so desired. This desperate offer, which became public almost instantaneously, was offered repeatedly to him, but he doggedly refused such a deal — in contrast to virtually every other former prime minister, again with the possible exception of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto — and then confronted the anger of a ruling elite that sought vengeance for his intransigency.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent behaviour demonstrates how, despite being a close ally of the United States, he and the ruling elite in New Delhi resent being seen as merely Washington’s “frontline state against China”. Modi had the distinct albeit dubious honour of being Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s close compadre. When Israel begin its genocide in Gaza last October, Modi scrambled to defend Tel Aviv even as the occupation state was increasingly being shunned by much of the world, particularly the Global South.

What has since become patently obvious is that the Indian leader has distanced himself from his friend. Modi is no longer taking Netanyahu’s calls.

OPINION: Is waving a Palestinian flag a crime in India?

Similarly, there has been much made about Modi’s literal and figurative embrace of Russian President Putin. This trajectory of the world’s most populous democracy has irritated Washington.

However, the idea that the Indian ruling elite is once again, as in its Nehruvian Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) phase, seizing the mantle of leader and defender of the Global South is a bit of a stretch. The political establishment in New Delhi is primarily making a strategic calculation. The winds are moving incontrovertibly from an acutely enervated West to a dynamic and assertive East and Global South, and India’s political incumbents see the writing on the wall. The manoeuvring is fundamentally tactical, not principled.

Turning back to Imran Khan, it is vital to recall the “threat” that he ostensibly posed to Washington in particular.

Much more than any economic impediment to the smooth operations of Western and domestic capital, Khan was seen as a geo-political menace. This is the understanding that was lost by the liberal and progressive Pakistani intelligentsia, which assumed that it was only revolutionary socialists who were the West’s targets for regime change.

It seems that someone like Saddam Hussein, who faced direct Western aggression for regime change, was himself clueless about his progressive and left-wing credentials. In the left-wing terminology of the 20th century, Khan could perhaps best be described as a “bourgeois nationalist”, although it is probably more complicated than that.

Nevertheless, from 2001, Khan opposed the “Afghan-Pak” theatre of the “War on Terror” for reasons that many in the world shared: it would be immoral because of the predictable human toll it would take; and it would be counterproductive because it would fuel more militancy. The US national security state never really forgave Khan for effectively being right about this: there would be no military solution in Afghanistan.

However, he repeated his position when prime minister: Pakistan, he insisted, would be friends with all countries in peace, not in war. And to make it crystal clear, he stated specifically that there is no reason why Pakistan cannot have a perfectly amicable relationship with the US. Washington, though, rarely tolerates neutrality, and Khan was accused of “aggressive neutrality” with regards to the beginning of the Russian “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine. That kind of neutrality may be a right of a more self-assured country like India, but not for Washington’s client military-civilian ruling elites in Islamabad.

Sheikh Hasina, on the other hand, was never seen as a threat to domestic elite actors, including the military, or powerful external forces.

Ask the multinational corporations how they have fared in Bangladesh over many years. It would be a surprise if, other than a particularly rapacious one, any Western corporation would answer anything other than, “Splendidly!” Whether or not Hasina could be described as “neoliberal” or just an old-fashioned facilitator of predatory “liberal” corporate capitalism, is largely irrelevant. Anyone claiming that she was a socialist, or a social democratic, or even a Keynesian figure should perhaps first consult 90 per cent of the Bangladeshi population.

It is also a phantom assertion that the phenomenon of both Hasina’s time in power and downfall were the result of an intense geopolitical power play between Washington and Beijing, as some analysts are trying to frame it. For the most part, she had kept both nations content with their economic activity in Bangladesh. It is an entirely separate matter of how, periodically, she manoeuvred herself politically in the charade of being on one side or the other.

The rather uncomplicated story here, as in many other contexts from one corner of the globe to the other, is that Hasina’s standing morphed from being a reliable asset to an incredible liability. The latter status comes either by betraying one’s domestic and external supporters, or simply because one’s unpopularity has climbed to a level that cannot be suppressed. There is a long list of Western-backed dictators to demonstrate this, such as Marcos in the Philippines or Noriega in Panama.

Clearly, Hasina’s case falls into this category. The Bangladeshi military top brass recognised that Hasina had overstayed her welcome, and forced her to resign. Her standing had deteriorated so precipitously that her own recently appointed army Chief of Staff, General Waker-Uz-Zaman, commanded her to resign and flee immediately. The general made it clear that he would not be able to protect her against an inflamed Bangladeshi population.

Although the mass opposition to Hasina came from civil society forces of varying ideologies, it was clear that the bulk of the population became her enemy, not her friend.

The ideological actors who have received a great deal of attention are the “political Islamists”, a reference primarily to Jamaat-e-Islami. The party played a hideous role in the 1970-71 war of liberation from what was then West Pakistan. It collaborated with West Pakistani generals in suppressing the legitimately aggrieved East Pakistanis (now Bangladeshis) ruthlessly. Indeed, the majority of its leaders were held accountable immediately after Bangladesh’s independence.

Nevertheless, Hasina found it politically opportune to raise the spectre of the treasonous pro-Pakistan Islamists within the country incessantly, in order to bolster her image fraudulently as a patriot and nationalist. In reality, the power and popularity of Jamaat-e-Islami had declined drastically, arguably only rising steadily as a result of Hasina’s merciless attacks on the group. The most vivid demonstration of how powerless the Islamists had become lay in Hasina’s decision to execute various octogenarians from the party. Despite the fact that a plethora of mainstream Western intellectuals and human rights groups — which mostly did not agree with the party’s ideology — found it inhumane to start these executions, she went ahead anyway. Within Bangladesh, although the majority of the population disagreed with these callous killings, the protests were muted.


Moreover, the idea that members of Jamaat-e-Islami are agents of Islamabad is fantastical.

It is a ridiculous allegation, not because it isn’t necessarily false, but because the idea that Pakistan’s ruling elite could accomplish any major external “victory” today is absurd. Islamabad can barely – if at all – deal with the incredible issues its old proxies in Kabul pose, never mind anything more than 2,200 kilometres away. Pakistan is thoroughly “defanged”, not in terms of its nuclear weapons programme (which would be a nice idea the world over), but in its total and entirely willing subordination to the foreign backers of its military and civilian elites. Just ask Pakistan’s perennial enemy, India, about the threat that it poses today. New Delhi’s political establishment will laugh at such a question.

Of course, Pakistan’s generals are happy to hear allegations that Islamabad was involved in Hasina’s removal. Such claims boost their image of being powerful and influential in world affairs, and hide the reality that they have reduced Pakistan to the status of a banana republic.

Perhaps the most useful recent example of the debate over whether an uprising is popular and has widespread support on the one hand, or is primarily regime change by foreign agents on the other, can be seen in Syria. As soon as anti-Assad regime protests erupted in 2011, these arguments emerged instantaneously. That same year, everyone correctly perceived popular Arab Spring upheavals in countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Bahrain as being organic with widespread popular support. The “NATO liberation” war for regime change in Libya began to alter that impression. The principal reason for regime change in Tripoli was the massive Western military intervention. Of course, that didn’t necessarily suggest that Muammar Gaddafi was loved by all Libyans.

If Libya compelled analysts to question the nature of anti-government protests — whether they are primarily an internal phenomenon or externally driven — then the demonstrations in Syria became fair game for much closer scrutiny. Many Syrians took great offence at basically being considered as little more than the cronies of foreign powers. And other Syrians were outraged that the perception that the “moderate rebels” offered no decent alternative to regime of Bashar Al-Assad necessarily translated into the former being implicated as Assadists.

A few years later, however, even those who argued vociferously that what had begun in Syria in 2011 was a “people’s revolution”, now became rather reticent and, if hard pressed, would concede that the initial anti-Assad protests had morphed into a proxy war fuelled by outside powers. The debate about the character of the Syrian “revolt” had definitively ended.

In Bangladesh now, it is critical to note how the pacification and co-optation of the popular uprising has already been set in motion, symbolised by the appointment of Nobel Peace Laureate Dr Muhammad Yunus, the neo-liberal of “microcredit” fame, as the transitional leader of the country. However, it is also imperative to acknowledge that Yunus is personally not considered to be one of the more viciously despised puppets installed by foreign and domestic elites, a fact that even sections of the global Left will concede. It is absurd to claim that he is akin to Western-backed clowns such as Juan Guaido and Ahmed Chalabi in Venezuela and Iraq respectively.


And that is precisely what makes him so attractive to the powerful.

The claim that Yunus is especially supported by the US foreign policy establishment in order to take a stab at its close ally, India, may contain a great deal of truth. He has not been beloved of Indian elites who resented his ceaseless denunciations of Hasina’s increasingly undemocratic turn. He has insisted on a healthier political environment permitting all opposition forces to be heard and to contest in free and fair elections. There was nothing inherently anti-Indian in what Yunus said, but Washington knows that his elevation to the highest offices of power will send a stern message to New Delhi: get back in line as a US ally that serves American geopolitical objectives.

So far, there is no mass protest against Yunus’s appointment. Again, that’s what probably makes him a good choice.

I am reminded of the audacious imperial comment by America’s former UN ambassador and national security adviser, John Bolton, that undertaking coups requires “brilliant” minds, the kind of superior intellect that, presumably, he thinks he possesses. Although his neo-colonial bravado is truly heinous, Bolton may have a point in highlighting the sadistically evil “brains” required to carry out effective regime change, even though his own putative cognitive prowess failed in Venezuela.

The change of regime in Bangladesh does not appear to have required any foreign “brains” behind it as such, but this is now certainly front and centre in the minds of state apparatchiks of the so-called Great Powers.

We will have to wait and see the direction that the Bangladeshi uprising will take or be taken. The champions of the ouster of Sheikh Hasina have no illusions about the possibilities of a “counter-revolution” engineered by outside agencies and from within Bangladesh. This is conveyed repeatedly in the ubiquitous commentary expressing both trepidation and calls for prayers that the removal of Hasina from power ushers in a much more desirable political and economic dispensation. It seems like siding with this yearning is more ethical than immediately invoking the tired “nothing is going to change” cliché employed by habitual cynics always keen on discrediting any movement for social change that is barely in its incipient phase. Those legitimate fears, prayers and yearnings should be vocalised persistently and emphatically in this pivotal period in Bangladesh’s history.

Resignations of Bangladeshi officials close to Hasina are legal, interim leader Yunus says

KRUTIKA PATHI
 Mon, August 12, 2024 


Bangladesh Daily Life
A police officer regulates a busy traffic intersection in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Monday, Aug. 12, 2024.

 (AP Photo/Rajib Dhar)

DHAKA, Bangladesh (AP) — The head of Bangladesh's interim government, Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, says the high-profile resignations of authorities close to ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina are legal after student leaders who organized protests against Hasina’s government issued ultimatums for them to quit.

“Legally ... all the steps were taken,” Yunus, 83, told a group of journalists Sunday night.

The country’s chief justice, five justices and central bank governor have all resigned in the past few days, part of a dramatic transformation after weeks of protests against a quota system for government jobs turned into a mass uprising. Hasina resigned and fled to India last week.

Yunus said a key priority of the interim government is to restore the independence of the judiciary. He called former chief justice Obaidul Hassan "just a hangman.”

Syed Refaat Ahmed was appointed the new chief justice on Sunday after his name was proposed by student leaders of the protests.

Students vow to cleanse the political system of Hasina's rule, which they have denounced as autocratic. More than 300 people, including students and police officers, were killed in the weeks of violence.

Yunus took over on Thursday after student leaders reached out. He said the students told him he was the only one they could trust.

He said he accepted "because these are the guys who broke the local government," describing it as a “student-led revolution."

“It's not my dream, it's their dream. So I'm kind of helping them to make it come true," Yunus said.

The interim government is expected to announce a new election, but it is not clear when it will be held.

Yunus had been a longtime critic of Hasina and her government. An economist and banker by profession and known as the “banker to the poorest of the poor,” he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for pioneering the use of microcredit to help impoverished people, particularly women.

Yunus ran into trouble with Hasina in 2008, when her administration launched a series of investigations into him and his Grameen Bank. He was put on trial in 2013 on charges of receiving money without government permission, including his Nobel Prize and royalties from a book.

Yunus has denied the allegations, and his supporters say he was targeted because of his frosty relations with Hasina.

Will India and Sri Lanka Benefit From Unrest in Bangladesh?

Mayu Saini
Mon, August 12, 2024 


It’s only been a week since former prime minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, escaped Dhaka in a helicopter as protests and violence broke out across the country.

Throughout this time, private conversations among manufacturers in Bangladesh and other sourcing nations have been focused on the future of business.

“Earlier there was China-plus-one after the pandemic, but now in addition to that there may well be a Bangladesh-plus-one situation,” a manufacturer in Dhaka told Sourcing Journal on condition of anonymity.

He cited the fact that there was a degree of uncertainty about the way the government would be positioned; the level of religious fervor and economic incentives are yet unknown. Meanwhile, the uprising led by the youth in the country has shown a degree of volatility that might not be easily subdued.

Although a new interim government led by noble laureate Muhammad Yunus was quickly initiated on Thursday, analysts noted that the surprise July protests led by students, which broke more than 15 years of leadership from the Awami League party, could possibly shift the balance of power in the country.

Manufacturers in Bangladesh have been working hard to reassure their customers that factories are back to work, and that the news about safety concerns on the streets was no longer impacting labor. There has been a flurry of reassuring calls to brands and retailers about the state of the industry in Bangladesh.

But the million-dollar question is whether—or how much—business could shift to other countries in the wake of the turmoil.

Many manufacturers in neighboring locales, including India and Sri Lanka, gave an official and humanitarian-leaning answer to Sourcing Journal: “Why would we look to benefit from another neighboring country’s misfortune?”

However, others indicated that opportunities are likely on the rise as brands and retailers look to ensure their production and delivery timelines. A report released Thursday by leading Indian ratings agency CareEdge estimated $200 million to $250 million in monthly business could shift to India in the near future. The report described the current situation in Bangladesh as a “golden chance for the Indian apparel sector to expand its footprint both in the short and medium term.”

“Large-scale readymade garment manufacturers with operational efficiency and backward integration are expected to be the biggest winners as global brands seek reliable and efficient suppliers,” the report noted, adding that “If the unrest in Bangladesh persists for an extended period, it could result in a significant shift in export orders towards India.” Other analysts projected an even higher figure of $350 million a month.

“Many of the brands and retailers who manufacture in Bangladesh also have production in Tirupur and other parts of India,” Raja Shanmugham, former president of Tirupur Exporters Association explained. “Many brands who work with Bangladesh also work in Tiruppur, and it is easy to wait and watch and make their decisions as things pan out. The priority for many of the brands has been Bangladesh, followed by India, so there is no need for any special initiation from the side of our manufacturers to reach out to brands. They will make their own decisions,” he said.

“As such, it could just be a temporary disturbance, but it’s hard to say,” he added. “Any government will make it a priority to bring stability. But when the situation is volatile, unexpected disturbances can erupt at any time, and it’s difficult for a new government to have control over the masses. Any vested interest can easily distort things for their own benefit, which would make brands more cautious in placing orders. The apparel industry is seasonally driven, and there can be no delays in shipments.”

“It is unfortunate, when competition comes how everyone works on others’ weaknesses,” he said, noting that it also happened over time with China. “Many brands took a conscious call to pull out of China in a phased manner—that has been happening. It didn’t happen overnight, and not likely to in this case either, but perhaps more strategic decisions to spread out to the best of possibilities,” Sahnmugham said.

India hasn’t benefitted greatly from the China-plus-one strategy. “India’s disorganization can be an advantage to another, but we have to get geared up to see if we are up to the mark. The preparedness is missing, the uptake planning may not be in place, but it can definitely be corrected. It is a good time to change the way it works here,” he observed, even while noting that Tiruppur has been known for its efficiency and capacity for growth. In May 2024, exports from the Southern India knitwear hub reached $360 million, up from $323 million from May 2023. The region also accounts for 55 percent of India’s knitwear exports.

Manufacturers in Sri Lanka, meanwhile, had similar reactions. While they looked at the possible windows for business, their reactions were mixed with sympathy—and, in some cases, a sense of déjà vu.

“We know how tough this is,” Joint Apparel Association Forum (JAAF) secretary general Yohan Lawrence said. “We went through something similar two years back, and we wish them well to come out of it.”

Bandula Fernando, chairman of the Sri Lanka Chamber of Garment Exporters, which represents small and medium enterprises sector within JAAF, observed: “At the end of the day it is a critical situation—and we are happy to do anything we can do to support and help them get back on their feet. It’s not about trying to see what you can take in someone else’s crisis.”

But he also believed that there would be a change, and a shift toward Sri Lanka—a topic that is being discussed extensively by manufacturers and exporters among themselves.

“Brands can’t easily move orders immediately—the fabric, the accessories, everything is already at the factories assigned,” he said. “But in the short term, I think 5 percent to 10 percent of orders will come to Sri Lanka. We can’t do it at their price, but if they need it urgently, brands will be willing to pay more.”

Other, smaller manufacturers had a different mindset, observing that Bangladesh did not hesitate to take their orders or show any sympathy for manufacturers in Sri Lanka when they were going through a crisis in 2022, and “it was a chance to flip that coin.”

A local newspaper in Colombo was quick to point out this week that Sri Lanka was poised to benefit from some apparel orders in the short term, citing JAAF. “Given Sri Lanka’s proven ability to adapt and our available capacity, we expect some foreign buyers to turn to Sri Lanka until the situation in Bangladesh stabilizes,” the paper quoted Lawrence as saying, while noting that “Sri Lanka had agility and sophisticated production capabilities, and spare capacity to fill in the gaps.”

Manufacturers in Bangladesh, meanwhile, are struggling to get back on their feet.

Adding to the escalating tensions and changing situations within the country is the fallout within the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA), the trade association known for its strength in bringing exporters together, perhaps more than in any other country. However, its leadership is known to have strong political associations, and the infighting within was par for the course, along with the fall of the government.

Mostafiz Uddin, managing director of Denim Expert Ltd. and founder and CEO of Bangladesh Denim Expo and Bangladesh Apparel Exchange (BAE), said that from a political perspective, it would appear that Muhammad Yunus “is the perfect candidate to restore peace and order to Bangladesh.” He stressed the fact that brands and associations from across the world were showing support for the industry. “Petty squabbles and video footage of violence among trade body members will only tarnish our reputation. It is time to put all our differences aside,” he said.

Other manufacturers have similar concerns. “I am afraid of the bad branding of Bangladesh to the rest of the world,” Munzarin Zaman, director of Fakir Apparels, said. “We have worked really hard over the years to recover from Rana Plaza, and the stereotypes about Bangladesh. We are sad to think it may effect the industry again because of politics. All our workers are local residents, so it’s been safe. When there was violence, we had kept our factories closed to safeguard them. Right now, things are better,” she added.

However, smaller factory owners said that the struggle continues as worker safety and uncertainty on the streets continue to cause delays and closures. They noted that the political climate is still unsteady.

“We will just have to wait and watch,” one noted.

Just like the rest of the world.

This student was handing out bottles of water to protesters. Minutes later, he was dead

Rebecca Wright
Mon, August 12, 2024 

Using his sleeve to wipe tear gas from his burning eyes, 25-year-old Mugdho weaves through the crowd, handing out bottles of water to the protesters whose demands for reform would soon topple Bangladesh’s leader.

Fifteen minutes later, the university student would become a martyr of the protest movement, when a bullet pierced his forehead as he paused to rest during the searing afternoon heat in the capital Dhaka.

Mugdho – whose full name was Mir Mahfuzur Rahman – was rushed to hospital by his friend and fellow protesters, but it was too late, his twin Snigdho – Mir Mahbubur Rahman – told CNN. “I just hugged him, and I cried.”

The video of Mugdho handing out water before his death on July 18 punctured the social news feeds of millions across Bangladesh, galvanizing more people to take to the streets calling for justice for the lives lost.

What began as peaceful protests against a quota system for government jobs spiraled into a nationwide movement to push longtime Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina out of office, resulting in a deadly crackdown and clashes which killed at least 300 people, according to analysis by local media and agencies.

“(The killings) kept happening, and everyone was silent,” said Farah Porshia, a 23-year-old protester who works at a tech company in Dhaka. “We needed to stand up for ourselves, and for democracy.”

Hasina fled to India by helicopter last week as tens of thousands of protesters marched on her home. By Thursday, the Bangladeshi economist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus had returned to Dhaka to form a temporary government, ahead of elections which the constitution states should be held within 90 days.

“I’m surprised by the amount of power we hold,” Porshia said. “Because for years, all of us have been feeling so powerless.”
Families seek justice

As the chaos of the last month is replaced by an uneasy calm, many families are now seeking accountability for the deaths of their loved ones.

Identical twins Mugdho and Snigdho were inseparable since birth – eating, sleeping and studying together, sharing clothes as well as secrets.

“He was not only my brother, he was my best friend, he is one of the parts of my body,” Snigdho said. “We used to do everything together.”

Mugdho (pictured) had a mathematics degree. His identical twin brother Snigdho said they were not only brothers but best friends. - Family photo

Math graduate Mugdho was studying for an MBA, and Snigdho had graduated with a law degree. The twins were planning to move to Italy this fall – to further their studies and explore Europe on motorbikes. To save money for their travels, they were doing social media marketing for the online freelancer hub Fiver.

Now, Snigdho and the twins’ older brother Dipto – Mir Mahmudur Rahman – are facing a future without Mugdho.

They kept hold of the university ID card Mugdho wore on a lanyard around his neck when he died – his spattered blood left to dry as a symbol of that dark day.

Mugdho’s brothers have kept the lanyard he was wearing when he was shot during protests in Bangladesh. - Salman Saeed/CNN

Now, they are trying to find solace from the impact Mugdho made on the protest movement.

“Because of him, people got the strength to do the protest,” Snigdho said. “He always used to say that ‘I will make my parents proud someday.’ That moment has come.”

Mugdho died two days after another pivotal moment in the protests – the death of 25-year-old Abu Sayed on July 16, captured on video which was widely circulated.

Amnesty International analyzed the videos and accused police officers of deliberately firing at Sayed with 12-gauge shotguns in a “seemingly intentional, unprovoked attack,” and condemned the authorities for using “unlawful force.”

CNN tried to reach the police for comment.

Cultural activists and members of civil society clashing with police at a march for victims killed during the recent nationwide student protests, in Dhaka, Bangladesh, on July 30, 2024. - Ahmed Salahuddin/NurPhoto/Getty Images

The shocking deaths of Sayed and Mugdho catapulted the unrest from being a largely student-led protest into the mainstream.

“Everybody was on the streets, people of every race, every religion, every ethnicity, of all ages, professionals, students, infants were on the roads,” Porshia said.

Among the hundreds of people who have reportedly died during the clashes over the past few weeks, UNICEF says at least 32 were children.

In a tiny shack made of corrugated metal and mud in the heart of Dhaka, the parents of 13-year-old victim Mubarak are still trying to process what happened to their son.

His mother Fareeda Begum rocks back and forth, weeping as she watches Mubarak’s TikTok videos on her phone – now all that she has left of him.

The youngest of four and the only one who still lived at home, Mubarak often helped his parents with their cows so they could sell milk to survive.

Mohammad Ramzan Ali holds a photo of his 13-year-old son Mubarak, who was killed during anti-government protests in Bangladesh. - Salman Saeed/CNN

“He was a smiling, happy boy. If you gave him work, he would never say no, he would do it with a smile,” his father Mohammad Ramzan Ali said, adding that he could also be “a little mischievous.”

Mubarak was outside playing with his friends on July 19 when the curious teenager wandered a short distance from their home in central Dhaka to see the protests.

The parents only found out that he’d been shot when they got a call from the hospital.

Holding his wife Fareeda in his arms as her tears rolled down her face, Ali said, “My son has been martyred for this movement.”

“I did not understand this quota protest before, we are uneducated,” he said. “But later what I understood is that this protest isn’t just for students, it’s for all of Bangladesh.”

CNN’s Esha Mitra contributed reporting.

Africa's top health body declares monkeypox a 'public health emergency'

Mpox, the high infectious disease that used to be called monkeypox, has been declared a “public health emergency of continental security” by Africa’s top health body over an outbreak that spread from the Democratic Republic of Congo to neighbouring countries.


AFP
Issued on: 13/08/2024 

Director General of Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Jean Kaseya conducts a press conference at the sidelines of the second day of the 37th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union (AU) in Addis Ababa on February 18, 2024. © Amanuel Sileshi, AFP

By:FRANCE 24

The African Union’s health watchdog on Tuesday declared a public health emergency over the growing mpox outbreak on the continent.

The outbreak has swept through several African countries, particularly the Democratic Republic of Congo.

“With a heavy heart but with an unyielding commitment to our people, to our African citizens, we declare mpox as public health emergency of continental security,” Jean Kaseya, head of the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), said during an online media briefing.

“Mpox has now crossed borders, affecting thousands across our continent, families have been torn apart and the pain and suffering have touched every corner of our continent,” he said.

The CDC warned last week that the viral infection’s rate of spread was alarming.

It said that over 15,000 mpox cases and 461 deaths were reported on the continent so far this year, representing a 160% increase from the same period last year.

“This declaration is not merely a formality, it is a clarion call to action. It is a recognition that we can no longer afford to be reactive. We must be proactive and aggressive in our efforts to contain and eliminate this threat,” Kaseya said.

Mpox is transmitted through close contact and causes flu-like symptoms and pus-filled lesions. Most cases are mild but it can kill.

The outbreak in Congo began with the spread of an endemic strain, known as Clade I. But the new variant, known as Clade Ib, appears to spread more easily through routine close contact, particularly among children.

Mpox has been endemic in parts of Africa for decades after it was first detected in humans in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1970.

A milder version of the virus spread to over a hundred countries in 2022, largely through sexual contact, prompting the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare a public health emergency of international concern, its highest level of alert.

WHO ended the emergency 10 months later, saying the health crisis had come under control.

According to CDC data as of August 4, there had been 38,465 cases of mpox and 1,456 deaths in Africa since January 2022.

(FRANCE 24 with REUTERS and AFP)

RUSSIAN FASCIST PHILOSOPHER
Anti-Liberal Russian Philosopher Dugin: Russia Has Entered The Process Of 'Decoupling' From The West; 'Decoupling' Will Define The Essence Of Relations Between China And The West

August 13, 2024
Russia, China | Special Dispatch No. 11502

 
 
• 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Renowned anti-liberal Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin recently published an article in which he argues that Russia and China, along with countries from the so-called Global South, are moving toward "decoupling" from the West. "One might consider that 'decoupling' has been imposed on us by the West itself. But, more likely, we can see the secret workings of Providence in this. The example of the opening of the Olympic Games in Paris illustrates this clearly. The West banned Russia from participating in the Olympics. But instead of punishment, against the backdrop of that aesthetically monstrous parade of perverts and the pitiful scrambling of swimmers in waters filled with filth and toxic waste in the Seine, all this turned into something quite the opposite – an operation to save Russia from disgrace and humiliation," Dugin added.

(Source: Geopolitika.ru)

Following is Dugin's article:[1]

"'Decoupling' Means Something Directly Opposite To 'Globalization'"

"In the coming decades, the main and most frequently used concept will undoubtedly be the term 'decoupling.' The English word 'decoupling' literally means 'disconnection of a pair' and can refer to a wide range of phenomena – from physics to economics. In all cases, it refers to the breaking of the connection between two systems, especially when both depend on each other to a greater or lesser extent. There is no exact equivalent for translating this word into Russian, although размыкание (unfastening), расцепление (disengagement), and разрыв пары (pair disconnection) convey the meaning. However, it is preferable to retain the English term 'decoupling.'

"In a broad sense, at the level of global civilizational processes, 'decoupling' means something directly opposite to 'globalization.' The term 'globalization' is also English (of Latin origin). Globalization means the unification of all states and cultures according to rules and algorithms established in the West. 'To be global' means to be like the contemporary West, to accept its cultural values, its economic mechanisms, its technological solutions, its political institutions and protocols, its information systems, its aesthetic standards, and its ethical criteria as something universal, total – the only option – and obligatory. In practice, this means the 'coupling' of non-Western societies with the West and with each other, but always in such a way that Western rules and standards serve as the algorithm. Essentially, in such a unipolar globalization, there was a main center – the West – and all others. The West and the Rest, as S. Huntington put it. The Rest was supposed to connect to the West. This connection ensured integration into a single planetary global system, into the global 'Empire' of postmodernity with the metropolis located at the center of humanity, that is, in the West.

"Entering globalization, recognizing the legitimacy of supranational institutions – such as the WTO, WHO, IMF, World Bank, ICC, ECHR, and up to the world government, a prototype of which is the Trilateral Commission or the Davos Forum – was an act of system binding, expressed by the term 'coupling.' Between the collective West and any other country, culture, or civilization, a pair was formed, in which a certain hierarchy – leader/follower – was immediately established. The West played the role of master, the non-West the slave. Along this axis of 'coupling,' the entire system of world politics, economy, information, technology, industry, finance, and resources was formed. The West in this situation was the embodiment of the future – 'progress,' 'development,' 'evolution,' 'reforms,' while everyone else was supposed to connect to the West and follow it according to the logic of 'catch-up development.'"

"Globalization" Is A "Western-Centric Phenomenon"

"In the eyes of the globalists, the world was divided into three zones – the 'rich North' (essentially the West – the US and the EU, as well as Australia and Japan), the 'semi-peripheral countries' (primarily the fairly developed BRICS countries), and the 'poor South' (all others).

"China engaged in globalization in the early 1980s under Deng Xiaoping. Russia did so under much less favorable conditions in the early 1990s under Yeltsin. Gorbachev's reforms were also aimed at 'coupling' with the West ('a common European home'). Later, India actively joined this process. Each country 'coupled' with the West, which meant integrating into the globalization process.

"Globalization was and remains a fundamentally Western-centric phenomenon, and given that the US and globalist elites play the main role in it, it is quite logical to use English terms to describe it. Globalization was carried out through 'coupling,' and from there, everyone involved followed its rules and guidelines at all levels – both global and regional.

"The processes of globalization gained momentum starting from the late 1980s until they began to falter and stall in the 2000s. The most significant factor in this reversal of the globalization vector was Putin's policy, which initially aimed to integrate Russia into it (joining the WTO, etc.) but at the same time insisted on sovereignty, clearly contradicting the main directive of the globalists – moving towards de-sovereignization, de-nationalization, and the prospect of establishing a world government. Thus, Putin quickly distanced himself from the IMF and the World Bank, rightly noting that these institutions used 'coupling' in the interests of the West and often directly against Russia's interests."

"We Must Consistently And Fundamentally Reject The Universality Of Western Norms"

"Simultaneously, China, which derived maximum benefit from globalization by leveraging its involvement in the global economy, financial system, and especially the offshoring of industries relocated by the globalists from Western countries to Southeast Asia (where labor costs were significantly lower), also reached the limits of positive outcomes from this strategy. Moreover, China initially took care to maintain sovereignty in certain areas – rejecting Western-controlled liberal democracy (events in Tiananmen Square) and establishing full national control over the internet and the digital sphere. This became especially evident under Xi Jinping, who openly declared China's course not towards Western-centric globalism but towards its own model of world politics based on multipolarity.

"Putin also firmly established the course towards multipolarity, and other semi-peripheral countries, particularly the BRICS nations, increasingly leaned towards this model. Relations between Russia and the West especially deteriorated with the onset of the Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine, after which the West rapidly began cutting ties with Moscow – at the economic level (sanctions), political level (an unprecedented wave of Russophobia), energy level (explosions of gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea), technological exchange level (bans on technology supplies to Russia), sports (a series of contrived disqualifications of Russian athletes and the ban on participation in the Olympics), and so on. In other words, in response to the SMO, that is, Putin's full declaration of Russia's sovereignty, the West initiated 'decoupling.'

"At this point, the term 'decoupling' acquires its full, profound meaning. It is not just a severance of ties; it is a new mode of operation for two systems, each of which is now supposed to be completely independent of the other. For the US and the EU, 'decoupling' appears to be a punishment for Russia's 'misbehavior,' that is, its forced detachment from development processes and tools. For Russia, on the contrary, this forced autarky, largely mitigated by maintaining and even developing contacts with non-Western countries, looks like the next decisive step towards restoring full geopolitical sovereignty, significantly undermined and almost completely lost from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. Who exactly initiated the 'decoupling,' that is, the cutting of Russia out of the Western-centric unipolar globalization structure, is now difficult to say definitively. Formally, Russia started the SMO, but covertly, the West actively pushed it towards this and provoked it through its Ukrainian proxy tools.

"In any case, the fact remains: Russia has entered the process of 'decoupling' from the West and its promoted globalism. And this is just the beginning. The inevitable stages are still ahead.

"First and foremost, we must consistently and fundamentally reject the universality of Western norms – in economics, politics, education, technology, culture, art, information, ethics, and so on. 'Decoupling' means not just a deterioration or even a severance of relations. It goes much deeper. It involves revisiting the basic civilizational attitudes formed in Russia long before the 20th century, in which the West was taken as a model, and its historical stages of development as an unquestionable template for all other peoples and civilizations, including our country. To some extent, the last two centuries of Romanov rule, the Soviet period (with a critique of capitalism), and especially the era of liberal reforms from the early 1990s to February 2022 were all Western-centric. For the last few centuries, Russia has been engaged in 'coupling,' not questioning the universality of the Western path of development. Yes, the communists believed that capitalism needed to be overcome, but only after it was built, based on the 'objective necessity' of changing formations. Even the prospects of world revolution were seen by Trotsky and Lenin as a process of 'coupling,' 'internationalism,' a linking with the West, albeit for the purpose of forming a single global proletariat and escalating its struggle. Under Stalin, the Soviet Union essentially became a separate state-civilization, but only by deviating from Marxist orthodoxy and relying on its own strengths and the unique creative genius of its people.

"When the energy and practices of Stalinism were exhausted, the Soviet Union once again moved toward the West along the logic of 'coupling' and predictably fell apart. The liberal reforms of the 1990s became a new leap towards 'coupling,' hence the Atlanticism and pro-Western stance of the elites of that era. Even under Putin in the early stage, Russia tried to maintain 'coupling' at all costs, until it came into direct contradiction with Putin's even firmer resolve to strengthen the state's sovereignty (which would have been practically impossible under continued globalization – both in theory and in practice)."

"By Cutting Us Off From It, The West Essentially Facilitates Our Recovery, Our Resurrection"

"Today, Russia is consciously, firmly, and irreversibly entering into 'decoupling.' Now it is clear why we agreed to use this term initially in its English version. 'Coupling' is integration with the West, recognizing its structures, values, and technologies as universal models, and the systemic dependence on it, as well as striving to be part of it, to catch up with it, to follow it – at worst, it involves replacing what the West has chosen to exclude us from. 'Decoupling,' on the contrary, means rejecting all these principles, relying not only on our own strengths but also on our own values, our own identity, our own history, our own spirit. Of course, we have yet to fully grasp the depth of this, as Westernization in Russia, the history of our 'coupling,' has lasted for several centuries. With varying success, the penetration of the West into our society has been continuous and intrusive. The West has long been not only outside but also inside us. Therefore, 'decoupling' will be very difficult. It includes complex operations to 'expel all Western influences from society.' Moreover, the depth of such cleansing is much more serious than even the criticism of the bourgeois system during the Soviet era. At that time, it was about two competing lines of development within a single (by default Western!) civilization – capitalist and socialist, but the second – socialist – model was also built on the criteria of Western society's development, on Western teachings and theories, on Western methods of calculation and assessment, on the Western scale of development levels, and so on. Liberals and communists are united in the understanding that there can be only one civilization, and they also agree that this is Western civilization – its cycles, its formations, its phases of development.

"A century before, Russian Slavophiles went much further and called for a systemic revision, a rejection of Westernization, and a turn to their own Russian roots. In essence, this was the start of our 'decoupling.' It is unfortunate that this trend, which was quite popular in Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries, did not prevail. Now we simply must complete what the Slavophiles, followed by the Russian Eurasianists, started. We need to overcome the West's claim to universality, globalism, and uniqueness.

"One might consider that 'decoupling' has been imposed on us by the West itself. But, more likely, we can see the secret workings of Providence in this. The example of the opening of the Olympic Games in Paris illustrates this clearly. The West banned Russia from participating in the Olympics. But instead of punishment, against the backdrop of that aesthetically monstrous parade of perverts and the pitiful scrambling of swimmers in waters filled with filth and toxic waste in the Seine, all this turned into something quite the opposite – an operation to save Russia from disgrace and humiliation. The images of 'decoupling' in sports vividly illustrate its healing nature. By cutting us off from it, the West essentially facilitates our recovery, our resurrection. Not allowed into the center of degeneration and shameless sin, Russia finds itself at a distance, at a remove. We recognize this today as Providence. So it is."

"We Are Not Alone On The Path Of Decoupling"

"If we now look at the rest of the world, we will immediately notice that we are not alone on the path of 'decoupling.' All those peoples and civilizations inclined towards a multipolar world architecture are entering the same process.

"Recently, in a conversation with a major Chinese oligarch and investor, I heard reflections on 'decoupling' from him personally. With full confidence, my interlocutor stated that the 'decoupling' of China from the United States is inevitable – and has already begun. The only issue is that the West wants to conduct it on terms favorable to itself, while China aims for the opposite, i.e., its own benefit. Until the last moment, China had successfully extracted positive results from globalization, but now this requires a revision and reliance on its own model, which China inextricably links with the success of integrating Greater Eurasia (in conjunction with Russia) and implementing the 'One Belt, One Road' project. According to the influential Chinese interlocutor, it is precisely 'decoupling' that will define the essence of relations between China and the West in the coming decades.

"India is also increasingly and firmly choosing multipolarity. While a complete 'decoupling' from the West is not yet being discussed, Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently openly declared a course towards the 'decolonization of the Indian mind.' This means that in this giant country, a state-civilization (Bharat), at least in the realm of ideas (which is paramount!), the course is set for intellectual 'decoupling.' Western forms of thought, philosophy, and culture are no longer accepted by the Indians of the new era as unconditional models. Especially since the memories of the horrors of colonization and subjugation by the British are still alive. After all, colonization was also a form of 'coupling,' i.e., 'modernization' and 'Westernization' (hence it was supported by Marx).

"It is evident that a full-fledged 'decoupling' is also occurring in the Islamic world. Against the Western proxy in the Middle East – Israel – Palestinians and Shiite Muslims in the region are currently waging a real war. The stark contrast between contemporary Western values and norms and those of Islamic religion and culture has long been a leitmotif of the anti-Western policies of Islamic societies. The disgraceful parade of perverts at the opening of the Olympics in Paris only added fuel to the fire. Notably, the most severe reaction to the blasphemous portrayal of Christ came from the authorities of Islamic Iran. Islam is clearly oriented towards 'decoupling,' and this is irreversible."

"As We Detach From The Global West, We Face The Need To Restore, Revive, And Reaffirm Our Own Values"

"In certain sectors, these same processes are emerging in other civilizations as well – in the new wave of decolonization of African peoples and the policies of many Latin American countries. The more they are drawn into the processes of multipolarity and the closer they get to the BRICS bloc, the more acute the issue of 'decoupling' becomes within these societies.

"Finally, we can observe that the desire to retreat within one's borders is increasingly becoming manifest in the West itself. Right-wing populists in Europe and Trump supporters in the United States are openly advocating for 'Fortress Europe' and 'Fortress America,' that is, for 'decoupling' from non-Western societies – against immigration flows, the dilution of identity, and de-sovereignization. Even under Biden, a committed globalist and staunch supporter of maintaining unipolarity, we see some unequivocal moves towards protectionist measures. The West is starting to close itself off, embarking on the path of 'decoupling.'

"Thus, we began with the assertion that the word 'decoupling' will be key for the coming decades. This is evident, but few yet realize how deep this process is and what intellectual, philosophical, political, organizational, social, and cultural efforts it will require from all humanity – our societies, countries, and peoples. As we detach from the Global West, we face the need to restore, revive, and reaffirm our own values, traditions, cultures, principles, beliefs, customs, and foundations. So far, we are only taking the first steps in this direction."

 

---

[1] Geopolitika.ru/en/article/decoupling?utm_referrer=https%3a%2f%2fwww.geopolitika.ru%2fen%3futm_referrer%3dhttps%253a%252f%252fwww.google.com%252f, August 9, 2024.