This approach maintains India’s credibility as a neutral actor, preserves its regional relationships, and avoids entanglement in ideological militancy or Iranian proxy politics.

The Red Sea tragedy involving the sinking of the vessel Eternity C on July 10, 2025, which endangered the life of an Indian national, has understandably stirred geopolitical anxieties. Yet, it should not be used as a launchpad for flawed diplomatic prescriptions.

In his recent opinion piece published by Firstpost, American analyst Michael Rubin proposes that India take a diplomatic lead in Yemen by supporting separatism in the south. Rubin’s thesis is not only historically inconsistent but strategically unwise—and risks aligning India’s image with the destabilizing agendas of Iran and its proxy militias.

Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, laments the so-called failure of Western diplomacy in Yemen, proposing that India should replace it by supporting the secession of South Yemen. His argument is built on three questionable premises: that unity has failed, that separatism would bring stability, and that India’s legacy and interests are best served through interventionist diplomacy in the Arabian Peninsula.

A Misreading of History and Strategy

Rubin’s narrative cherry-picks Yemeni history to justify separatism. It is true that Yemen’s unification in 1990 brought its own challenges. But portraying this union as the sole driver of instability is historically myopic. Yemen’s strife is primarily the result of decades of corruption, political exclusion, and, most critically, Iranian-backed insurgency through the Houthi militia.

By advocating a fragmented Yemen, Rubin ironically finds himself echoing Tehran’s strategic wishlist. As Saudi political analyst Salman Al-Ansari rightly noted in response, “The Houthis and Iran are actually very grateful for the actions of the separatists.”

That’s because separatism fractures the already strained national military, dilutes the central government’s authority, and distracts from the core task of defeating the Iranian-backed Houthi insurgency.

Rubin’s promotion of the Southern Transitional Council (STC), a separatist faction with limited legitimacy and narrow geographic influence, overlooks the broader political, tribal, and demographic complexities of Yemen.

It ignores the voice of Hadramout—a massive, resource-rich governorate in the south that remains largely resistant to STC’s ideology. Hadramout has consistently demanded greater autonomy within a federal framework, not secession. To paint all of South Yemen with the STC brush is analytically lazy and politically dangerous.

Iran’s Strategy: Divide and Conquer

Rubin suggests that dividing Yemen will curb Iranian influence. But the opposite is true. Tehran’s strategy in the Arab world has always thrived on institutional collapse, factionalism, and governance vacuums—be it in Iraq, Syria, or Lebanon. Splintering Yemen into northern and southern states would only legitimize the Houthi coup in Sana’a and give Iran formal control over a puppet state in the north, while maneuvering to extend its tentacles into the south via co-opted militias.

Salman Al-Ansari highlighted a chilling but telling remark from Ali Larijani, former Iranian Speaker of Parliament, “We want a state loyal to us in the north, and another friendly state in the south.”

That alone should send alarm bells ringing for Indian strategists. Supporting the breakup of Yemen would play directly into Iran’s long game in the region—pitting tribes, provinces, and ideologies against one another to prolong chaos and weaken the regional coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

India’s Role: Stability, Not Subversion

Rubin also appeals to India’s historical ties with Aden and its anti-colonial legacy. While it is true that Indians once had a vibrant presence in southern Yemen during the British period, invoking this colonial history to advocate for Indian-backed secessionism today is both insensitive and ill-conceived.

India’s current posture in the region is one of non-intervention, stability, and multilateral diplomacy. As the fourth largest economy and a strategic stakeholder in the Indian Ocean basin, India gains from freedom of navigation, secure shipping lanes, and a united front against piracy and Iranian militarism.

Championing the disintegration of a sovereign Arab nation would mark a dramatic and unwelcome shift in India’s foreign policy ethos, alienating long-time allies like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt—nations who view Yemeni unity as essential to regional security.

Moreover, Indian diplomats have successfully walked a tightrope in Middle East politics, maintaining relations with Iran while deepening strategic cooperation with Gulf Arab states and Israel. Rubin’s advice risks compromising this delicate balance.

Separatism Is Not a Silver Bullet

Rubin’s comparison of Yemen to Kosovo or Moldova is deeply flawed. Both Kosovo and Moldova were born of violent disintegration of multiethnic empires, not voluntary national unions like Yemen’s. Additionally, unlike Kosovo, South Yemen does not have unified political institutions, coherent leadership, or international recognition.

The Southern Transitional Council remains a militia-backed entity that has clashed violently with other Yemeni factions and has yet to present a credible vision for inclusive governance.

In fact, many Yemenis see the STC as a proxy force themselves—backed by competing foreign agendas that don’t necessarily align with the welfare of Yemenis at large.

What India Should Actually Do

India’s best move is to remain a force for balance, humanitarian engagement, and economic rebuilding in Yemen. Rather than choosing sides in a domestic power struggle, New Delhi should increase its engagement with the UN-led peace efforts and offer logistical and humanitarian support in Aden and other liberated cities. It must work closely with Saudi Arabia and the UAE to secure maritime routes and deter Houthi aggression in the Red Sea.

At the same time, India can support federalism and decentralization within a united Yemen—an approach that respects the aspirations of southern regions without compromising national sovereignty.

This approach maintains India’s credibility as a neutral actor, preserves its regional relationships, and avoids entanglement in ideological militancy or Iranian proxy politics.

Michael Rubin’s op-ed exemplifies a recurring pattern in Western commentary—well-articulated and perhaps well-meaning, but ultimately detached from on-the-ground realities. His argument overlooks the complex regional dynamics at play, misjudges the priorities of key stakeholders, and unintentionally echoes the agendas of actors like Iran and the Houthis who thrive on instability.

India, with its growing diplomatic weight and deep regional ties, should resist being drawn into such flawed narratives.

Salman Al-Ansari’s rebuttal serves as a timely reminder that durable peace in Yemen will come not from fragmentation, but from inclusive governance, national unity, and regional cooperation. India must stay the course—supporting stability over secession, diplomacy over division.

This situation clearly showed that in the new Bangladesh, if you are Hindu, fighting for your rights is considered sedition.

Bangladesh in 2025 feels like a place weighed down by memories. While the events of 1971 linger in the air, the reality on the ground seems more like the partition era of 1947. The once hopeful vision of a Bangladesh where Hindus and Muslims could join hands to create a unified nation has been eroded by the passage of time and the impact of politics.

Today, speaking against India is no longer just a slogan on the streets. It casts a dark shadow over every Hindu teacher, lawyer, and activist who is brave enough to express their views.

The Reported Persecution

Get in touch with Chinmoy Krishna Das’s family. He was a monk who became an activist. His arrest for sedition in late 2024 deeply affected the Hindu community. Why was he arrested? He demanded constitutional protections for minorities. This action sparked not only protests but also violence. Temples were destroyed by fire, homes were robbed. This situation clearly showed that in the new Bangladesh, if you are Hindu, fighting for your rights is considered sedition.

Utsav Mondal was taken and beaten in a police station because of a Facebook post. He survived, but it sent a clear warning: staying quiet is safer. People speak quietly about Bhavesh Chandra Roy, another demised Hindu leader admired for his bravery. Teachers, lawyers, and everyday Hindu citizens find themselves part of a crossfire that battles with history and the future.

Human rights groups and the BBC have been reporting issues faced by Hindus in Bangladesh, particularly after political changes in the country. Hindus are often pressured to prove they are not in support of India as anti-India hatred among the extremists grow stronger. 

In Bangladesh, a troubling wave of violence and fear forced at least 49 minority teachers to resign. These teachers faced physical attacks and threats. Sajib Sarkar from the Bangladesh Chhatra Oikya Parishad shared that out of all the teachers who left their jobs, only 19 were able to return. Across the country, this situation has left classrooms and staff rooms empty and damaged.

Besides targeting homes and temples, attackers are also focusing on schools, where the future generation is being educated. In today’s Bangladesh, even a simple blackboard for education has become unsafe for minority groups.

From August 5 to 20, there were 2,010 incidents of communal violence, resulting in the death of nine people belonging to a minority community. Additionally, a report by TIB highlighted that religion-based politics is gaining more influence in Bangladesh.

The unreported Persecution

In this setting, Tulsi Gabbard, the US Director of National Intelligence, expressed concern: “The ongoing problems of persecution, killing, and mistreatment of religious minorities—Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Catholics, and others—are a big issue for the US government.” For Hindus in Bangladesh, fear is a longstanding issue, but recent silence about it is something new.

British Journalist Sahar Zand walks through the remains of a burned Hindu barn in northern Bangladesh, calling the scene “gut-wrenching.” A year’s worth of harvest has been destroyed, and the farmer is too scared to speak, his silence a sign of the community’s fear.

Zand’s BBC documentary reveals details that headlines often miss. She notes that “Attacks on the Hindu community happen daily, with 8 to 9 cases reported each week in Northern Bangladesh,” according to local activist Bonamali.

She highlights the despair by mentioning that “Most people are planning to leave. They’ve already packed their important belongings. Every Hindu in Bangladesh has this plan,” a voice shared with her. Zand shows that the violence against Hindus is ongoing, their silence is forced, and often the world is looking away.

At the sidelines event of United Nations, Journalist Sahar Zand stands strongly and speaks the truth that many avoid: “Minorities in Bangladesh are facing attacks. I witnessed it myself, and it’s very frightening. The world needs to pay attention.”

Zand, who has reported from conflict zones such as Afghanistan and Iran, describes Bangladesh as “extremely terrifying.” This is not due to what is in the news, but because of what is not being reported.

“The situation in the country is not being shown in the international media. It feels like the world is ignoring it,” she warns with a clear and strong voice. For Hindus in Bangladesh, Zand’s comments are a rare sign—showing that someone is watching, even as the silence becomes overwhelming.

How Interim Regime Controls Media?

American Researcher and former Pentagon official Michael Rubin attended congressional briefing stated: “Bangladeshi journalists and civil society are in danger. At the same time, Yunus is spending a lot of money to promote his image in international media,” he says. He highlights that the arrest of Farzana Rupa and Shakil Ahmed is now a regular occurrence under the Interim government.

Rubin points out that more than a thousand journalists have lost their jobs for being “too secular,” making newsrooms dangerous for those who don’t align with the authorities’ views.

Political Expert Chris Blackburn, who has been observing the situation in Bangladesh for many years, warns about ongoing efforts by the interim authorities to intimidate and silence the press. His concerns are felt in every newsroom, where editors think twice before deciding to publish.

In Dhaka, journalists are learning to be extremely cautious which is leading to censorship of news about minorities and persecution. Therefore, reports like at-least 49 minority teachers persecution could possibly only be a trailer of the incident. 

 Interim’s lack of accountability Diplomacy

The Interim government in Dhaka often denies reports about attacks on Hindus. They claim these reports are just made-up stories from social media or have political motives. When India raises its concerns, Dhaka’s government accuses India of interfering in its affairs and puts the false blame on Sheikh Hasina’s supporters or outside troublemakers. Instead of dealing with the violence, like the killing of Bhabesh Chandra Roy—which India says shows ongoing persecution—the government’s spokesperson criticizes India.

They talk about communal issues in West Bengal regarding Waqf Bill which is a policy driven issue and nothing to do with targeted minority persecution. They prefer this diplomatic sorcery possibly to make false comparisons based on tactical disinformation. Instead, the Interim Government’s rhetoric fuels mob violence as radical supporters of the interim government declare war against India, Seven Sisters and Hindus getting inspired and radicalized from the theocratic Ghazwa E Hind (Battle against Hindus) sourced from broader Islamic literature (Hadith).

Dhaka surprisingly disregarded DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s statement as misleading, which shows how relentless Bangladeshi authorities are to sabotage facts on persecution. But why Dhaka hasn’t been able to refute Journalist Sahar Zand’s field-based report of unreported persecution of Hindus remains a riddle. 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

S M Faiyaz Hossain

Cultural and religious minorities in Bangladesh are also suffering due to rising extremism.

The New York Times published a report titled “As Bangladesh Reinvents Itself, Islamist Hard-Liners See an Opening,” detailing the rise of Islamist extremism in Bangladesh during political changes. The report discusses how religious extremists are taking advantage after the removal of former leader Sheikh Hasina. 

It highlights incidents like bans on women’s soccer and public harassment of women who do not follow conservative dress codes. 

There have been rallies demanding the death penalty for actions seen as blasphemy. The report notes that some Islamist groups, including previously banned ones, are pushing for stricter religious rules in the government. 

Officials are working on a new constitution that might change secularism to pluralism. This shift is causing concern over weakening democratic values and increasing risks for women and minorities.

Bangladesh used to be known for its secular roots and cultural diversity, but in recent years, extremist ideas have been resurfacing. Although this isn’t an entirely new foundation, it has become more noticeable and concerning since 5^th of August 2024.

Extremists are attacking secular bloggers and targeting women’s sports and cultural events. Their goal is to impose strict religious views or a political caliphate on a society that values diversity. This rise in extremist actions is worrying because it threatens freedoms, especially those of women and minorities, and poses a danger to the country’s democratic setup. 

A particularly troubling aspect is the attack on women’s rights to participate in public life. For example, some women’s football matches had to be cancelled because of threats from extremist groups. This shows how these groups are trying to take over spaces that were once empowering for women. Sports provide young women with opportunities to move up socially and gain international recognition, but these are now under threat. 

Such actions not only limit their dreams but also send a negative message about the shrinking space for women in public and professional life. It reflects a broader aim to suppress women’s rights under the guise of religious morality, harming the progress made in gender equality over the years.

Lifting bans on Islamist political parties like Jamat-e-Islami and freeing extremists like Mufti Jashimuddin Rahmani known as the Anwar Al Awlaki of Bangladesh, give these groups more confidence. While the interim government might claim these actions are part of a broader peace strategy, they risk legitimizing extremist ideas and giving them a platform to grow. 

Inadequate systems to monitor released extremists make the situation worse, providing spaces for radical elements to regroup and plan for something like the meticulously planned October 7^th Attack orchestrated by Hamas. 

Meanwhile, a banned organization like Notorious Hizbut Tahrir openly propagated their influence and participation in Anti-Quota protest which for them was a tactical Jihad to oust the exiled Government and get a step ahead for their future plan of implementing a Caliphate. 

This political leniency by Interim Government weakens public trust in governance and helps extremist narratives spread, they have made few arrests while the extremist leaders are free and that questions if arresting the activists while ignoring the leadership is a soft ploy to leverage a tactical narrative. 

Cultural and religious minorities in Bangladesh are also suffering due to rising extremism. Attacks on Sufi shrines and other minority religious sites highlight an increase in intolerance. These aren’t isolated events but part of a plan to make all of Bangladeshi society conform to strict ideological rules. 

Targeting cultural figures, authors, and artists underlines this trend, aiming to silence voices of dissent and alternative perspectives. Such actions threaten Bangladesh’s rich culture, traditionally a mix of diverse influences. We must also consider socio-economic factors driving this phenomenon.

Poverty, unemployment, and lack of access to education create conditions where extremist views can take root. Young people, especially those from marginalized backgrounds, often join these movements seeking a sense of identity, purpose, or community. 

Extremist groups exploit these vulnerabilities using targeted propaganda and recruitment strategies, often through social media. Addressing these foundational issues requires comprehensive policies that promote inclusive development and foster social unity. 

Political Researcher and former Pentagon Official Michael Rubin, in a US Congressional briefing highlighted the growing concern of Radicalization in Bangladesh and opinionated an article ‘Is Bangladesh the Next Afghanistan’. 

Rubin is worried about how Noble Laurate Yunus is leading because it seems less tolerant than people expected. This is particularly true about how the government handles freedom of the press and different political views. 

Yunus is famous around the world for his work in microfinance, which helps poor people with small loans. He took charge of the interim government after Sheikh Hasina was removed from power. 

At first, many welcomed Yunus because they thought he would be different from Hasina, who was seen as too controlling. But Rubin thinks Yunus’s government is letting strict Islamist groups have too much power and is stopping people from speaking freely, which could hurt democracy. 

Rubin is especially concerned about the freedom of the press under Yunus’s rule. Some journalists, like Farzana Rupa and Shakil Ahmed, have reportedly been brutally jailed on vague and ambiguous murder charges, raising fears about free speech in Bangladesh.

Over 1,000 journalists seen as “too secular” have reportedly been fired, showing a lack of tolerance for different opinions. Rubin also mentions problems faced by Julfikar Ali Manik, who reports on Islamist groups, and former Member of Parliament Fazle Karim Chowdhury, who works to protect minority rights. 

These issues suggest that Yunus’s temporary government might not be supporting the diversity and human rights that are important for democracy.

Increasingly, people are showing public support for Hamas, which is a growing concern. This support is visible in rallies and in the way some individuals dress to symbolize the group. 

Bangladesh, for many years, has had a clear stance against Israel. It has consistently supported Palestine through diplomatic efforts and has officially recognized only the Fatah-led government based in the West Bank. However, there is a noticeable rise in grassroots support for Hamas, especially in the wake of the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict. 

In this situation, extremists have spoken out against American interests in Bangladesh. Recently, some Islamists verbally called for aggressive protests in the U.S. Embassy in Dhaka. Along with Anti-India rhetoric, hatred for Trump’s America and Israel are seen. 

These tensions are fuelled by foreign policy support for Israel. The Interim Government was supposed to carry forward a Peaceful transition towards Democratic Election, while the reality looks, they have political interests to gain in the name of ‘reform’. 

Serving the interests, they are currently capitalizing on Islamists for majority support while being harsh and harsher on Secularists, Awami league activists, minorities and anyone associated with the 1971 Liberation war as tweeted by Lemkin Institute of Genocidal Prevention with multiple red flags. 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

World leaders, including former U.S. President Donald Trump, perceive Erdoğan’s crumbling strongman image

Nearly two million Turks have gathered in Istanbul to protest President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s decision to arrest his main political rival, Ekrem İmamoğlu, on what critics call fabricated corruption and terrorism charges. The move has ignited widespread outrage across Turkey, with demonstrators denouncing Erdoğan’s authoritarian grip on power and calling for his immediate resignation.

The arrest of İmamoğlu, who served as Istanbul’s mayor and was seen as Erdoğan’s strongest challenger in upcoming elections, has fueled speculation that the Turkish president is attempting to eliminate political competition ahead of a crucial vote. Protesters have taken to the streets chanting, “Enough is enough!” and “Turkey will not be silenced!” as security forces struggle to contain the surging crowds.

Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a Middle East expert, has been vocal about the situation. “Turks are not stupid; they see through Erdoğan’s cynicism and comment on its ironies,” Rubin stated. “Erdoğan accuses İmamoğlu of corruption, but Erdoğan not only has pending corruption cases dating to his own tenure as mayor, but he has since accumulated billions of dollars in unexplained wealth. He accuses İmamoğlu of supporting terror, but Turkish journalists photographed Erdoğan’s intelligence service transporting weaponry to an Al Qaeda affiliate in Turkey.”

The controversy deepened when Erdoğan’s government reportedly annulled İmamoğlu’s university degree, a requirement for presidential candidates. Rubin pointed out the hypocrisy in this move, noting, “Not only was Erdoğan’s own degree fraudulent, but the grounds for dismissing İmamoğlu’s degree were the illegitimacy of the university he attended in occupied northern Cyprus. As with its universities, so too is it with its entire regime.”

The international community is closely watching the unfolding crisis, with speculation growing about how world leaders, including former U.S. President Donald Trump, perceive Erdoğan’s crumbling strongman image. “Trump sees himself as a winner and despises losers,” Rubin said. “Whereas he may once have seen Erdoğan as a strongman, it is now clear that the would-be sultan wears no clothes. Trump and his team are correct: Turkey is important, but Turkey and Erdoğan are not synonymous. Simply put, Trump should dump Erdoğan.”

The massive protests, among the largest in Turkey’s modern history, highlight a growing sense of urgency among citizens determined to reclaim their democracy. The Turkish military and law enforcement agencies now face a crucial test of allegiance. “Turkey’s elite soldiers swear allegiance to the state and the people of Turkey, not one man who holds the constitution and rule of law with disdain,” Rubin emphasized.

With tensions reaching a boiling point, many analysts fear that Turkey is approaching a breaking point. Some protesters argue that peaceful demonstrations may not be enough to bring about real change in a system they see as rigged in Erdoğan’s favor.

Rubin did not mince words when outlining what may be necessary for political transformation: “The Turkish protestors now fight for the soul of their nation. Every protestor on the streets of Istanbul is as consequential for the future of modern Turkey as was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Protests might matter in democracies; however, Turkey is not a democracy. To succeed, they must march on Turkey’s palaces and prisons. If Erdoğan does not helicopter to the airport and flee the country, they should detain him, pending trial, even if passions are such that those who reach him first might simply hang him and release political prisoners, ranging from İmamoğlu to detained Kurdish politician Selahattin Demirtaş and philanthropist Osman Kavala.”

Rubin also hinted at the possibility of internal betrayal within Erdoğan’s own ranks. “Erdoğan, like Bashar al-Assad in Syria, may be tempted to hang on. While the United States will never say directly, the White House likely would not look askance at regional states that would offer reward to any Erdoğan bodyguard who turns their guns on the would-be despot to arrest him or, if he resists, to kill him.”

The coming days will be critical for Turkey’s political future. Will the protests succeed in toppling Erdoğan’s rule, or will the regime resort to even harsher crackdowns to suppress dissent? What is clear, however, is that Turkey is at an inflection point. As Rubin put it, “The age of Erdoğan must end. Turks can either take the next step, or they will have no one but themselves to blame for Turkey’s descent into dictatorship, state failure, and eventual civil war.”