NN ONLINE:
In a written statement submitted to the International Crimes Tribunal before his death, Marxist thinker Badruddin Umar warned that former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, who was ousted in the July Uprising and later sought refuge in India, could face assassination at the hands of the Indian government. The tribunal released Umar’s testimony posthumously on Sunday.
Umar argued that even with India’s assistance in some “subversive activities,” the Awami League’s revival as a national political force would be “impossible.” He described Hasina’s government as an administration aligned with Indian interests, contrasting it with her father, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, whom Umar portrayed as more independent-minded despite his pro-India stance.
“Under these circumstances, banning the Awami League is not just a matter of political principle but of national security,” Umar wrote, calling the party a “structural agent of India” that he said endangered Bangladesh’s political, economic, and cultural future.
Hasina survived the Aug. 15, 1975, assassination of her father, as she and her family were in Belgium at the time. They later sought political asylum in India, and Hasina lived in exile for nearly six years before returning to Bangladesh in May 1981.
Umar alleged that during Hasina’s long stay in India, she deepened ties with New Delhi and developed a close relationship with India’s external intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). He claimed this relationship helped New Delhi influence Hasina’s rise to power. “That is why after her downfall, she fled to India. Staying there will itself be a kind of punishment — she will burn in anguish,” Umar asserted. “Another punishment could be — in my view — that the Indian government will kill her to free itself from embarrassment. As long as they keep her, relations with Bangladesh will not improve.”
He warned that if Hasina were kept in power, relations with Bangladesh would remain strained unless a political decision were made about her. “So if Modi kills her, don’t be surprised. They will stage it to look like someone from Bangladesh killed her and run an organized campaign to spread that story.”
Umar described the July Uprising as the “most explosive and most transformative” moment in the country’s history and offered extensive observations on the Awami League’s posture before and after independence. He stated that, in his view, “From beginning to end, Sheikh Hasina’s government was dedicated to protecting India’s interests.” He contrasted Hasina with her father, noting that Mujib was pro-India but did not govern under India’s directives, whereas Umar argued Hasina’s governance was guided by what he called India’s design.
“Sheikh Mujib rose from among the people through struggles and movements; he had political maturity built over years,” Umar said. “By contrast, Hasina is like someone who parachuted into power. She became leader only because she was Sheikh Mujib’s daughter. She had no solid political base or personal popularity. She came to power as ‘the daughter of Mujib,’ but she did not inherit his ideas or philosophy. Rather, Hasina destroyed the country’s political values.”
