Among many citizens of Bangladesh, a growing unease has taken root—a profound apprehension that the country is gradually surrendering its sovereign will to external powers and becoming increasingly vulnerable to foreign influence like the Washington administration.
To such critics, Bangladesh no longer appears to be charting an entirely independent course; rather, they fear it is drifting into a state of excessive dependence, resembling a modern client state whose destiny is increasingly shaped beyond its own frontiers.
History furnishes sombre lessons.
Iraq and Libya, both endowed with abundant natural resources, witnessed devastating wars and upheavals after prolonged international interventions justified in the name of democracy, human rights, and alleged security concerns.
The consequences were catastrophic, leaving behind fractured societies and enduring instability.
To many observers, these tragedies stand as cautionary reminders of how geopolitical interests often masquerade as noble ideals.
No great power, whether Eastern or Western, acts solely out of altruism.
States pursue interests, not sentiments.
The United States, like every global power throughout history, advances strategic objectives that serve its own national priorities.
The tragedy unfolds when domestic actors, driven by personal ambition, ideological zeal, or material gain, become willing instruments of external agendas at the expense of their own country’s long-term interests.
Throughout history, colonialism has seldom triumphed through military might alone. It has relied equally upon collaborators within the conquered society.
The British East India Company did not subjugate Bengal merely through superior arms; it exploited divisions and enlisted local intermediaries.
Empires have always understood that influence exercised from within can be far more effective than force imposed from without.
Today, many Bangladesh’s people fear that a similar pattern is unfolding in subtler forms.
International pressure, economic dependency, foreign-funded advocacy networks, and geopolitical calculations have generated concerns regarding the erosion of national autonomy.
These fears are entirely justified. The anxiety itself cannot simply be dismissed.
However, the answer to foreign influence does not lie in vengeance, persecution, or violence.
Nations are not strengthened through hatred. They are strengthened through institutions, transparency, accountability, and an enlightened citizenry.
Those who are suspected of corruption, betrayal of public trust, or illicit foreign entanglements must be held accountable through the rule of law and democratic scrutiny—not through lawlessness or retribution.
Patriotism must never descend into fanaticism. True patriotism demands vigilance, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to the national interest.
It requires leaders capable of balancing international relations without surrendering sovereignty, and citizens capable of distinguishing legitimate cooperation from unhealthy dependence.
Bangladesh has overcome far darker chapters in its history.
The spirit that inspired the struggle for independence in 1971 was not a spirit of submission but one of dignity, self-respect, and self-determination.
Those ideals remain as relevant today as they were in the days when the nation emerged through sacrifice and blood.
The essential question confronting Bangladesh is not whether foreign powers seek influence—they invariably do.
The more pressing question is whether Bangladesh possesses the political maturity, institutional resilience, and national unity necessary to safeguard its own destiny.
History teaches that no foreign domination is eternal. Empires rise and empires fall.
External powers come and go. Yet nations endure when their people remain conscious of their heritage, vigilant in defence of their sovereignty, and steadfast in preserving their independence.
The future of Bangladesh ultimately rests not in Washington, Beijing, or any distant capital. It rests in the wisdom, unity, and democratic strength of the Bangladesh’s people themselves.
For it is not foreign powers alone that determine the fate of nations. More often, nations are either redeemed—or imperilled—by the choices made within their own borders.
Following 5 August 2024, Bangladesh has come to resemble a contemporary American colony in all.
One need not delve too deeply to understand the nature of American power—simply open the pages of history and examine the wars in Iraq and Libya.
These two nations, blessed with immense natural wealth, were reduced to ruins with astonishing ease under what many regard as false pretexts.
First came lofty rhetoric about democracy and human rights; then emerged stories about those fantastical weapons that ultimately proved illusory. And do you know who, according to many critics, aided America most in these ventures?
Domestic collaborators—the very people often celebrated as the “civil society.” These disgraced elements, it is alleged, enriched themselves while inflicting grievous harm upon their own countries.
A similar design was, in the eyes of many, contemplated against Iran. Iran, too, had no shortage of collaborators.
Yet Iran survived because it dealt ruthlessly with those forces and prevented them from undermining the nation from within.
Many believe that Sheikh Hasina should likewise have acted decisively.
Had all those regarded as American proxies been firmly neutralized through legal and political means, Bangladesh, they contend, would not have found itself in its present predicament.
But now, the country appears to many to have slipped almost entirely into America’s grasp. Judging by the path Bangladesh is traversing, one is tempted to think that even two centuries may not suffice to escape this condition.
It took nearly 190 years to free the subcontinent from the grip of the East India Company and British colonial domination, and contemporary America is immeasurably more powerful than that old mercantile empire ever was.
From this predicament, many argue, there is but one path forward: to identify those who serve foreign interests at the expense of the nation and consign them to political oblivion and public repudiation.
Otherwise, they fear, there may remain no viable means of rescuing the country.
I am genuinely curious: will these collaborators ever truly disappear, or are they destined to reappear in every generation under new names and different disguises?
