During British rule, present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh were part of the same colonial structure: British India. Therefore, we have a shared history of resistance against British imperialism, where the people of the subcontinent fought together, bound by common aspirations and cultural connections. However, to counteract this unified struggle, the colonial rulers and their local allies, including the emerging capitalist class and ideological forces, contributed to creating communal divisions. This led to the rise of Hindutva politics and, as a reaction, Muslim-centric political movements, strengthening identity politics. As a result, those who were earlier involved in the anti-British movement later became adversaries based on religious identity. When the British eventually left, the region was left in turmoil, where Hindus and Muslims saw each other as enemies while the British remained the common "friend" of all.

During British rule, investments were made in various sectors, leading to the emergence of a capitalist class that later became the driving force behind the region's development path. After independence, under Jawaharlal Nehru's leadership, India adopted policies that facilitated the growth of a state-sponsored capitalist class. Because of sustained political stability, this capitalist expansion continued uninterrupted, leading to the rise of powerful business groups and a strong industrial foundation in India. However, by the late 1980s, Congress began to weaken, allowing Hindutva politics and the BJP to gain significant traction. Over the past two decades, we have witnessed how large capital and Hindutva politics have merged, reinforcing each other. This connection became especially evident in the 1990s.

While India has witnessed the expansion of large capital, what has been the condition of its people? India is home to some of the world's richest people, but it is also home to the largest number of poor people, where caste- and class-based discrimination is rampant, despite the country's consistent economic growth.

Read more

Analysing India-US relations under Trump 2.0

Meanwhile, to sustain its expanding capital, India needs more markets and raw materials. Thus it is easier to understand why India seeks to assert its influence beyond its borders. Alongside economic expansion, the country has also aspired to become a global military power. In the 1990s, India became a nuclear-armed state, conducting nuclear tests that prompted Pakistan to do the same. India has one of the largest military forces globally and is the largest importer of arms.

Within India's own borders, there has been a heavy militarisation process, closely linked to capital interests. In mineral-rich areas, entire communities have been displaced to pave the way for corporate exploitation; this has even led to the emergence of armed resistance movements. Today, a number of areas in India is under some form of militarised control. The most extreme example of this is Kashmir. Beyond Kashmir, military forces have been used to displace people in resource-rich areas under the guise of "development."

Due to the nature of global capitalism, Indian capital cannot always be separated from multinational capital. Indian capital is practically interlinked with, among others, US, Japanese, and German capital through subcontracts, partnerships, and joint ventures, forming a multinational economic dominance. This is why the US has been promoting India as the regional leader for decades. Washington relies on India as a strategic counterbalance to China, seeking to establish its footing in the region through India.

Read more

How Bangladesh can navigate the geopolitical crossroads

International financial institutions like the World Bank and Asian Development Bank (ADB) have promoted policies such as structural adjustment programmes, privatisation, commercialisation, and globalisation. Indian capital has been one of the major beneficiaries of these policies. This is evident in the various agreements Bangladesh has signed with India concerning electricity, water, rivers, and industrial sectors. While these agreements reflect competition between capital interests, they also highlight strategic alliances.

Over the past decade, Bangladesh has entered into agreements with India that have significantly favoured the latter's big capital interests. Previous governments also made unequal agreements with India, but the Sheikh Hasina administration showed unprecedented submission. Hasina needed a guarantee of perpetual power without elections, leading to her complete dependence on India. She openly admitted, "What we have given to India, they will remember forever." She further stated that she expected no return. However, it now seems she does seek something in return: her own security.

Whenever Bangladesh's issues with India are discussed, the 1971 Liberation War is brought up. It is true that India supported Bangladesh during our Liberation War. When Pakistan's military launched a brutal genocide, around one crore Bangladeshis took refuge in India. The Indian people provided invaluable support, demonstrating unparalleled empathy and solidarity. We must always remain grateful for this. However, it is important to note that the government in power at that time was led by Congress, not the BJP, which did not even exist then.

Another critical question is: just because the Indian people supported Bangladesh in 1971, does that mean Bangladesh should now be indebted to the Indian government? Should Bangladesh be forced to favour Indian conglomerates like Adani? Must we sacrifice the Sundarbans, our airports, seaports, and borders to serve India's interest over our own? A state is never benevolent—its actions are always driven by strategic interests. India's decision to support Bangladesh in 1971 was also strategic. However, the support from the Indian people was driven by humanity and ideology. While we remain thankful for the Indian people's past support, that does not mean that we have to give in to India's capitalist exploitation.

The people of Bangladesh have specific grievances, problems, and opinions regarding India. Among these are water and river disputes, border killings, transit issues, unbalanced trade, and political interference in Bangladesh's internal affairs. And grievances against India's current foreign policy stance are not limited to Bangladesh alone; it has also attempted to exert influence over Nepal, Bhutan, the Maldives, and Sri Lanka. Consequently, India has different levels of distrust, conflicts, and tensions with these countries as well. The problems between us, therefore, are not just communal issues; rather, they stem from the "big brother" attitude of a powerful state and its large capital.

For the interest of the people of the region, we badly need a peaceful, democratic South Asia. To eliminate unrest, violence, and inequality in South Asia, we need collective efforts. In this regard, it is also important to recognise how the Indian people themselves are victims of the existing system. Ultimately, the interests of the people of South Asia, including India, are fundamentally aligned.

Our common struggle should, therefore, be for a South Asia free from oppression, inequality, and imperialistic control. To achieve this, it is now more crucial than ever to build solidarity among the people of the entire region.

Anu Muhammad is former professor of economics from Jahangirnagar University.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.