 "From Ukraine to Bangladesh: Analysing instability, regime change and the not-so-hidden American hand")
The toppling of an elected government through violent street protests in Bangladesh evokes memories of Ukraine’s Maidan Square “revolution” in 2014 that removed President Viktor Yanukovych, who had been elected as head of state by the people of the country. That incident eventually led to a bloody armed conflict between Moscow and Kyiv, triggering deep global turmoil.
The common thread between these two events—in Bangladesh and Ukraine—is the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). NED—a US Congress-funded body with a larger ecosystem of foundations, NGOs, and human rights groups—apparently spearheaded efforts to thread a network of players and forces that would accomplish regime change in Bangladesh. The regime change in Bangladesh represents a mutation of Colour Revolutions that have affected other regions, including Caucasia, West Asia, and North Africa, during the so-called Arab Spring of 2011.
Sandwiched between India and Southeast Asia, Bangladesh serves as a critical observation post to monitor China and India, which has resisted US pressure to dilute its strategic autonomy, causing the US Ambassador to India to express frustration with New Delhi publicly.
India supports a multipolar world order, an ideological stance that does not align with Washington’s refusal to accept it is no longer the sole superpower driving the global agenda. New Delhi’s friendly ties with Moscow and its insistence on distancing itself from the hostility towards Russia exhibited by the collective West have become major friction points between India and the US.
Recently, New Delhi called for Washington’s exit from its Indian Ocean military base in Diego Garcia, arguing that the broader Chagos archipelago, of which Diego Garcia is a part, belongs to Mauritius. Moreover, US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Donald Lu, visited Chennai amid elections, raising concerns in New Delhi’s decision-making circles. Many viewed the US State Department’s readout on Lu’s visit in May 2024, which claimed he was visiting the consular personnel at the Chennai mission to “bolster bilateral engagement in southern India”, as obnoxious advocacy for sub-nationalism.
Impact Shorts
View AllLu and the outgoing US ambassador to Bangladesh, Peter Hass, have been mentioned in cyberspace as key architects of regime change in Dhaka. Indian observers note that Lu played a significant role in toppling former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, who blamed Lu for instigating a “foreign conspiracy” against his government following his visit to Moscow the same year (2022).
“Donald Lu is a hated figure in India due to his interference in Indian democracy. Last year, he entertained Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi at the White House,” Anant Bhagwat, Founder-President of the Global Strategic Policy Foundation Pune (GSPFP), a national security and foreign policy think tank, told Sputnik India. This added another layer of discomfort, which had already been rising, when New Delhi accused Washington of interfering in its general elections, bringing Prime Minister Narendra Modi to a third term for the next five years.
Through its funding of the Journal of Democracy, NED has been instrumental in shaping international narratives about the state of democracy in India. This scrutiny has intensified over the years, raising concerns about the motivations behind such criticisms and their potential impact on India’s democratic fabric.
In July 2023, the Journal of Democracy—a prominent publication funded by NED—published a series of articles critically examining India’s democratic trajectory under Prime Minister Modi. The articles accused Modi’s government of systematically dismantling democratic institutions and norms, suggesting that India’s democracy was declining. These pieces sparked a global debate about the health of Indian democracy, with some viewing the criticism as a necessary check on government power. In contrast, others saw it as a biased narrative driven by external interests.
By April 2024, the same Journal of Democracy escalated its rhetoric, publishing an article that argued the future of India as a pluralistic, secular democracy was at risk if Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) secured a third consecutive term in the upcoming elections. The article painted a dire picture of India’s political landscape, raising alarms about the erosion of democratic values under Modi’s rule.
India’s relationship with NED has been complicated, particularly given the organisation’s history of funding NGOs that are critical of the Indian government. In 2016, the Indian government placed NED on a watch list, citing violations of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), which regulates foreign donations to Indian entities. NED’s funding of certain NGOs was found to be contravening these regulations. This move was necessary to protect the country’s sovereignty and prevent external interference in its domestic affairs.
The decision to scrutinise NED’s activities in India highlighted broader concerns about foreign influence on civil society and political discourse. The Indian government’s actions aimed to ensure that external entities like NED do not unduly influence the country’s democratic processes or undermine its institutions.
In light of these revelations, the Modi administration must be particularly cautious. The influence of NED in India is not to be underestimated. As a tool of American soft power, NED works to subtly influence political processes, shape public discourse, and, if necessary, destabilise governments that resist US hegemony. Therefore, the Modi government must be vigilant in identifying and neutralising NED assets operating within India.
NED’s historical role as an indirect extension of CIA activities, promoting US interests abroad under the guise of democracy-building, mirrors Cold War tactics when US intelligence agencies conducted similar operations. NED, its affiliated donor organisations, and their grant recipients have perfected the art of obscuring financial trails through a complex network of intermediaries, including regional NGOs, independent foundations, and “philanthropic” institutions.
This web of funding channels allows money to be routed in ways that hide its origins. When funds reach their final destination, any direct link to Washington or its geopolitical agenda is purposefully blurred, if not entirely severed from public perception.
This strategy is designed to deflect scrutiny and avoid accusations of foreign interference. Even when NED or another Western funder supports a project, the money is often funnelled into satellite initiatives operating under different names. This structure provides plausible deniability to both the recipients and the original funders, making it difficult for investigative journalists or critics to connect the dots to entities like the US government definitively.
However, the truth is hard to hide for long. Truth has an uncanny ability to leak itself out, particularly when it is suppressed. The appearance of NED’s pursuit of democracy and freedom is contradicted by the fact that it incites division and supports violence and false narratives. As more countries like India restrict NED, the hidden side of NED gradually comes to light.
China recently published a report on NED, listing its record of supporting separatist and violent activities in various countries and backing separatist forces such as the World Uyghur Congress (WUC) and Hong Kong independent organisations to confront China.
In the United States, the two parties and the public have differing attitudes towards NED. The once right-wing NGO has gradually moved closer to the left, causing dissatisfaction among Republicans. Especially after Joe Biden came to power, he increased NED’s funding budget and excluded conservatives in the appointment of personnel.
In this regard, the Republican Party has criticised NED for its “wokeness”, accusing it of being a pawn of the military-industrial complex controlled by the deep state of the United States, wasting taxpayer money, and deviating from NED’s principles of democracy and freedom. Former President Donald Trump slashed the NED budget in 2019, and if re-elected in 2024, he may again cut Congress funding for NED. The US elections in November this year will determine the future of NED.
Selena Green is a feminist advocate and human rights activist with eight years of experience as a coordinator of various human rights organisations. Mahesh Ranjan Debata teaches at the Centre for Inner Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. The views expressed are personal and solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost views.
 "'There's hope something is moving': Merz says Trump 'largely shares' Europe's position ahead of Alaska talks")
 "What happened during Trump's call with Zelenskyy and European leaders?")
 "Alaska talks ‘a big win for Putin,’ John Bolton told Firstpost. Now Trump calls him ‘loser and dumb’")
 "Faulty math and accounting tricks: How much has DOGE inflated its savings numbers")
 "'There's hope something is moving': Merz says Trump 'largely shares' Europe's position ahead of Alaska talks")
 "What happened during Trump's call with Zelenskyy and European leaders?")
 "Alaska talks ‘a big win for Putin,’ John Bolton told Firstpost. Now Trump calls him ‘loser and dumb’")
 "Faulty math and accounting tricks: How much has DOGE inflated its savings numbers")
