Ukhrul/Agartala: The recent military action by India in Pakistan, dubbed Operation Sindoor, was preceded by a startling statement from a former high-ranking Bangladeshi officer who openly advocated for seizing India’s Northeast with Chinese assistance if India were to attack Pakistan. Major General (Retd) A.L.M. Fazlur Rahman, a decorated freedom fighter and former Director General of the Bangladesh Rifles, publicly suggested that Bangladesh should consider occupying India’s Northeast in coordination with China if India attacked Pakistan.
“If India attacks Pakistan, Bangladesh should occupy the seven states of Northeastern India. I think it is necessary to start discussions with China on a joint military arrangement in this regard,” Rahman wrote on his verified Facebook profile.
The timing of the statement, coming just ahead of India’s May 7 strikes on alleged terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir raised alarm. Operation Sindoor was launched in response to the April 22 Pahalgam terrorist attack, which killed 26 people, including one Nepali national. India blamed Pakistan-based terror groups, a charge Islamabad denies.
Must read | India Strikes Back: ‘Operation Sindoor’ Targets Terror Hubs Across Border
Rahman’s comments went beyond military strategy. He criticized India’s BJP-led government, alleging that the National Register of Citizens (NRC) was part of a broader plan to disenfranchise Muslims. He warned of potential mass detentions, forced deportations to Bangladesh or Pakistan, and drew comparisons to Israeli policies, citing reported violence against Muslims in India.
Arguing that Muslim-majority nations like Pakistan and Bangladesh had a duty to protect Indian Muslims, especially with the Maldives having limited geopolitical weight, Rahman accused the Modi government of fabricating the Pahalgam attack to justify aggression against Pakistan. He contended that if India succeeded in weakening Pakistan, Bangladesh’s sovereignty could be next. In that context, defending Pakistan, he claimed, was not just strategic, it was existential.
His most controversial proposition: a joint Bangladeshi-Chinese occupation of India’s Northeast as a deterrent against further Indian military action.
The post added fuel to an already volatile situation. India’s actions in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack included suspending participation in the Indus Waters Treaty, prompting Pakistan to threaten withdrawal from the Simla Agreement. Diplomatic ties were downgraded on both sides.
Following Operation Sindoor, Pakistan condemned the strikes as an “unprovoked act of war,” alleging civilian casualties and claiming to have downed Indian aircraft, claims that New Delhi has neither confirmed nor denied.
The interim government in Dhaka quickly distanced itself from Rahman’s remarks. Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus’s office stated that the comments were personal and did not reflect official policy. Still, Rahman’s words carried weight. He remains a close aide of Yunus and currently chairs the National Independent Commission, a significant oversight body.
That context is critical, especially considering Yunus’s own contentious statement during a March visit to Beijing, where he described India’s northeastern states as “landlocked” and called Bangladesh the region’s “only guardian of the ocean.”
Also read | East Khasi Hills Imposes 2-Month Night Curfew Along Indo-Bangla Border; Four Bangladeshi Held
Adding to the intrigue, India conducted a nationwide civil defense drill on the same day as Operation Sindoor, covering 244 districts. Officially, it was a routine test of emergency preparedness. But with sirens blaring across major cities in the Northeast, questions emerges: Was the drill simply a precaution or part of broader strategic signaling in light of regional threats, including those suggested by Rahman?
While the international community has urged restraint, Rahman’s remarks have peeled back the surface of a tense and shifting regional dynamic. Whether Major General (Retd) A. L. M. Fazlur Rahman call for a Northeast incursion was a serious strategic proposition or just a reflection of deeper anxieties, it reveals the high stakes of subcontinental geopolitics, where perception, timing, and rhetoric can carry as much weight as missiles and treaties.