Brigadier General (retd) Abdullahil Amaan Azmi has sparked outrage after claiming during an online discussion that Bangladesh would “not see complete peace unless India breaks into pieces.” Azmi, son of former Jamaat-e-Islami chief and convicted 1971 war criminal Ghulam Azam, alleged that India deliberately keeps unrest alive in Bangladesh and has historically interfered in the country’s internal affairs. His statements triggered strong reactions in India, especially since the remarks come at a time when New Delhi and Dhaka are attempting to stabilise relations after recent political tensions.
Azmi accused India of supporting armed insurgents in the Chittagong Hill Tracts between 1975 and 1996 by sheltering and training the Shanti Bahini, the militant wing of the PCJSS. He also criticised the 1997 Peace Accord, alleging that the surrender of arms was superficial and failed to resolve long-term issues. Generating controversy is not new for Azmi, who frequently uses public platforms to target India and comment on regional geopolitics.
Security experts in India have warned that Azmi’s statement reflects a deeper ideological mindset rather than an isolated outburst. They argue that radical Islamist groups linked to Jamaat-e-Islami appear emboldened under the Muhammad Yunus interim government and believe India must remain vigilant. With Bangladesh heading toward elections early next year, New Delhi is closely monitoring the resurgence of Jamaat-e-Islami — once banned over terror activities — which has regained political traction and emerged as a competitor to the BNP after its student wing won union polls at Dhaka University.
The remarks have reopened longstanding concerns in India about elements within Bangladesh advocating hostility toward New Delhi while benefiting from diplomacy. Observers warn that aspirational narratives built on the idea of breaking India ignore historical fact — that Bangladesh became a free nation in 1971 because India intervened to stop genocidal violence by West Pakistan. They argue that regional stability has always depended on cooperation rather than calls to dismantle a neighbouring state and that such rhetoric risks fuelling polarisation instead of supporting lasting peace in South Asia.
