Dr. A K Abdul Momen, a former Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, has recently penned an article titled “Ominous Signs of a Long-Term Civil War!” that has generated significant attention and debate in the public domain. However, upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that the article is riddled with flaws, biases, and unsubstantiated claims. Rather than providing a thoughtful and informed analysis of Bangladesh’s geopolitics, the article resorts to inflammatory rhetoric and simplistic opposition, ultimately failing to hold water.

As a seasoned diplomat, Dr. Momen’s article is a disappointing and unbecoming contribution to the public discourse. One would expect a more nuanced and informed analysis from someone of his stature and experience. Unfortunately, the article reads like a shallow and opportunistic attempt to whip up public sentiment and create unnecessary fear and anxiety. It is a cheap throw at the public domain that is instantly rejected by anyone familiar with the complexities of international relations and geopolitics.

In this rebuttal, we will examine five key critiques of Dr. Momen’s article, highlighting its lack of objectivity, flawed assumptions, irresponsible rhetoric, lack of evidence, and oversimplification of complex issues. His observation of Sheikh Hasina has been looked into. Her bag of achievements is not entirely empty, which is quite expected for a leader who has been in power for so long. However, the holes in the bag are much wider. If she wants to put her best foot forward, she should face the trial. This will not push the country into civil war; rather, it will significantly increase people’s belief in the country’s political landscape.

Critique 1: Lack of Objectivity and Biased Perspective

Dr. Momen’s article is replete with unsubstantiated claims, speculative assertions, and a clear bias against the United States, India, and certain individuals, such as Dr. Yunus. The author’s perspective is heavily influenced by his own experiences and perceptions, which are presented as facts without sufficient evidence or corroboration. The article’s tone is also alarmist and sensationalist, which undermines its credibility and objectivity. A more balanced and nuanced approach would be necessary to present a convincing argument.

Critique 2: Flawed Assumptions and Lack of Context

The article relies on several flawed assumptions, such as the notion that the United States is determined to establish a military base in Bangladesh and that India is willing to attack Bangladesh to protect its interests. These assumptions are not supported by credible evidence and ignore the complexities of international relations and geopolitics. Additionally, the article lacks context, failing to consider the historical, cultural, and economic factors that shape the relationships between Bangladesh, India, and the United States. A more informed and contextualised analysis would be necessary to understand the dynamics at play.

Critique 3: Irresponsible and Inflammatory Rhetoric

The article’s language is often inflammatory and irresponsible, predicting catastrophic consequences, such as a civil war, massive loss of life, and widespread destruction. This kind of rhetoric can be damaging and counterproductive, as it can create unnecessary fear, anxiety, and tension. Furthermore, the article’s emphasis on Hindu-Muslim conflict and the prospect of communal violence is particularly concerning, as it can exacerbate existing social tensions and divisions. A more measured and responsible approach would be necessary to promote constructive dialogue and understanding.

Critique 4: Lack of Evidence and Credible Sources

The article relies heavily on unsubstantiated claims and lacks credible sources to support its assertions. There is no concrete evidence to back up the author’s claims about the United States’ intentions to establish a military base in Bangladesh or India’s willingness to attack Bangladesh. The article also fails to provide any credible sources to support its claims, making it difficult to verify the accuracy of the information presented. A more rigorous and evidence-based approach would be necessary to build a convincing argument.

Critique 5: Oversimplification of Complex Issues

The article oversimplifies complex issues, such as the relationships between Bangladesh, India, and the United States, and reduces them to simplistic and binary oppositions. The author’s analysis ignores the nuances and complexities of international relations, geopolitics, and domestic politics, and presents a simplistic and misleading narrative. A more nuanced and multifaceted approach would be necessary to capture the complexities of these issues and provide a more accurate understanding of the dynamics at play.

Dr. Momen’s article falls short of expectations and fails to provide a thoughtful and informed analysis of Bangladesh’s geopolitics. Its flaws, biases, and unsubstantiated claims render it a disappointing and unbecoming contribution to the public discourse. As a seasoned diplomat, Dr. Momen should strive to provide more nuanced and informed analyses that promote constructive dialogue and understanding, rather than resorting to inflammatory rhetoric and simplistic opposition.