Context

• The trajectory of global reactions to Islamic radicalism highlights a stark pattern: legitimacy and engagement appear conditional on power consolidation by these groups.
• The cases of Afghanistan in 2021, Syria in 2024, and the recent developments in Bangladesh exemplify this trend.
• Amid these developments, it is important to examine these scenarios, emphasising the broader implications for regional stability and international relations.

A Case Study in Legitimising Radical Regimes: The Taliban and Afghanistan

• The U.S. and Global Powers’ Response
  • The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan culminated in a chaotic handover, highlighted by the deadly suicide bombing at Kabul airport, killing 13 U.S. troops and many Afghan civilians.
  • The logistical mishap of leaving $7.1 billion worth of U.S. military equipment behind further compounded the situation, raising concerns about these resources being used to bolster Taliban control.
  • Yet, despite this backdrop, global powers, including the U.S., China, and Russia, moved swiftly to engage with the new regime.
• The Irony of International Cooperation
  • The cooperation extended to the Taliban by the Troika Plus (U.S., China, Russia, and Pakistan) starkly contrasted with the preceding efforts to marginalise India’s role in Afghanistan.
  • In the weeks leading to the Taliban’s takeover, this coalition sought to exclude India from discussions on Afghanistan’s future.
  • For example, a reference to the Heart of Asia Conference on Afghanistan was removed from a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) draft statement due to India’s involvement in the conference.
  • However, events took an ironic turn when India assumed the presidency of the UNSC in August 2021, just as the Taliban seized power.
  • This position allowed India to influence UNSC Resolution 2593, which emphasised that Afghan soil should not be used for terrorist activities.
  • India played a pivotal role in ensuring that the resolution explicitly referenced terrorist organisations, including the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, both linked to Pakistan.
  • Despite this diplomatic success, global powers exhibited little political will to enforce the resolution, allowing the Taliban to operate without accountability.

The Case of Syria and Bangladesh

• Syria: A Recurrent Pattern
  • The toppling of Bashar al-Assad in 2024 by Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, leader of Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS), mirrors the Taliban’s ascent.
  • Once a figurehead of al Qaeda in Syria, al-Jolani’s transition from terrorist to political leader has not erased his extremist past.
  • Yet, the U.S. and the West have rapidly recalibrated their stance, including removing a $10 million bounty on his capture.
  • This shift exemplifies how power acquisition can shield leaders of radical groups from accountability, fostering a precedent that may embolden other extremist factions.
• The Bangladesh Conundrum
  • The collapse of Sheikh Hasina’s government and the subsequent rise of an interim military-led administration under Muhammad Yunus have reintroduced Islamic radical groups into the political mainstream.
  • Organisations like the Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT) and Jamaat-e-Islami have exploited the instability to promote their extremist agendas, deepening religious tensions and threatening regional stability.
  • India’s strategic interests in Bangladesh are at stake. Over the past 16 years, bilateral relations have flourished, driven by Sheikh Hasina’s secular governance.
  • However, the resurgence of radicalism risks undoing these gains.
  • The anti-India rhetoric adopted by the interim government’s advisors threatens to polarise the region, creating a volatile environment reminiscent of Syria or Afghanistan.

Implications for Global Governance

• Erosion of International Norms
  • The normalisation of regimes like the Taliban and Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) undermines the principles of international law and governance.
  • These groups often gain recognition despite violating core UN mandates on human rights, terrorism, and inclusivity.
  • This selective application of norms creates a dangerous precedent, signalling that the international community is willing to overlook atrocities if political expediency demands it.
• Empowerment of Extremist Groups
  • The legitimisation of radical groups following their rise to power sends a clear message to other extremist organisations: achieving control through violence or authoritarianism can yield international acceptance.
  • This emboldens groups such as al Qaeda affiliates and IS-inspired factions, particularly in unstable regions like Africa and South Asia, where governments are already grappling with insurgencies.
• Human Rights as a Bargaining Chip
  • The sidelining of human rights in favour of diplomatic engagement has left vulnerable populations, women, minorities, and dissenters, at the mercy of oppressive regimes.
  • In Afghanistan, the Taliban’s actions have reversed decades of progress on gender equality and education.
  • Similarly, the international community’s failure to hold such regimes accountable weakens global advocacy for universal human rights.

The Larger Picture in India-Bangladesh Relations Post the Collapse of Elected Government in Bangladesh

• Avoid Viewing Events through a Religious Lens
  • Both India and Bangladesh should avoid interpreting events solely from a religious perspective, whether Islamic or Hindu.
  • Such a narrow view has been harmful in the past and will remain counterproductive.
  • Islamic radicals and some advisers to Mr. Yunus are intentionally trying to create divisions within their own country by baiting India.
• India's Approach to Bilateral Relations
  • India aims to protect its relationship with Bangladesh and has expressed its willingness to work with the interim government.
  • Over the past two decades, India has resolved most bilateral issues except for the sharing of Teesta River waters.
  • Notably, during the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) revolt in 2009, India strongly supported Bangladesh’s newly elected government and played a key role in preserving its democracy.

The Way Forward

• Principled Diplomacy over Expediency
  • The international community must prioritise long-term stability and human rights over short-term gains.
  • This includes refusing to recognise or engage with regimes that come to power through violence or oppression without demanding accountability.
  • Diplomatic channels can be used as leverage to enforce compliance with international norms rather than as tools for legitimisation.
• Strengthening Multilateral Mechanisms
  • Global organisations like the United Nations need to strengthen their capacity to address the rise of radical regimes.
  • This involves better enforcement of existing resolutions, such as UNSC Resolution 2593, and a commitment to upholding international law.
  • Multilateral coalitions should work to ensure that economic aid and resources are conditional upon progress in governance, human rights, and counter-terrorism measures.
• Global Attention to Religiophobia
  • Religious extremism often thrives in environments of polarisation and prejudice.
  • India’s efforts at the UN to highlight religiophobia against non-Abrahamic faiths, Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists, are a step in the right direction.
  • Expanding this discourse to address all forms of religious hatred can create greater global solidarity in combating extremism.

Conclusion

• The cases of Afghanistan, Syria, and Bangladesh illustrate a troubling global trend: the selective legitimisation of Islamic radical groups based on their grip on power.
• This approach not only undermines efforts to combat extremism but also destabilises regions already fraught with tensions.
• For nations like India, the path forward requires a delicate balance, engaging with current regimes while remaining steadfast in opposing radicalism.