The persistent targeting of minorities, particularly Hindus, by violent Muslim mobs in Bangladesh has cast serious doubt on the interim government's claims of “secularism.” Meanwhile, Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus’s administration has attempted to deflect attention from the escalating violence and mass killings by accusing India of exaggerating the situation.
Image via Hindu American Foundation/Deccan Chronicle/The Economic Times
In a further demonstration of indifference to the rapes, murders, and destruction of Hindu temples and properties, Bangladesh’s regime, on December 4th, accused India’s “governing elite” of politicizing the crisis for internal gains. The statement implied that the massacre of Hindus by jihadi groups was not a matter of concern for India or the international community, dismissing it as an issue of lesser importance.
These remarks from Bangladeshi officials followed expressions of concern from Indian authorities over the rising attacks on Hindus and other minorities in Bangladesh.
Information adviser Nahid Islam said, “If this happens, it will be harmful to India’s domestic politics. Anti-Bangladesh and anti-Muslim politics won’t benefit India’s national interest or promote its unity,” reported The Times of India. Before joining the interim government, he was one of the student activists who led the rebellion against the ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina.
Meanwhile, his administration continues to actively enable anti-Hindu violence, not only through inflammatory statements but also by tacitly condoning the killings and later denying their occurrence. This was echoed by Sheikh Hasina, who accused Yunus and his associates of orchestrating the unrest and mass killings in the country. Nahid urged India to uphold “harmony” and to stop engaging in what he called “false propaganda” against Bangladesh.
But is it truly “false propaganda” when there is substantial evidence, including videos and domestic media reports, documenting atrocities against Hindus and other minority groups? Bangladesh’s foreign policy towards India now appears to revolve around deflecting blame, dismissing its own transgressions, and criticizing its neighbor for simply urging the government to uphold its responsibility to protect all citizens, regardless of their religion.
Nahid claimed, “Bangladesh shares historical and cultural ties with West Bengal, Tripura and Assam. They are our stakeholders. During the uprising in Bangladesh, students from Kolkata and Delhi stood in solidarity with us and protested Hasina’s atrocities. India’s democracy-loving people are our friends.” India has historically maintained strong ties with Bangladesh, a relationship underscored by India's pivotal role in supporting the country's creation.
The current government seems to have lost sight of its past as it intensifies its criticism of India. More significantly, democracy is meant to uphold equality and justice—principles that are notably absent in today’s Bangladesh, where fundamentalists and their supporters dominate and hold power. Moreover, the ousting of Sheikh Hasina, frequently framed as a democratic transition, was far from it.
Nahid readily exploited the typical Leftist-Islamist narrative to criticize “Hindutva,” implying that its adherents were somehow responsible for the atrocities in Bangladesh. This group has, however, co-opted the term and uses it as a deflection when confronted with inconvenient truths arising from their own actions. As per the information advisor, “Hindutva forces” were allegedly against harmony and democratic ties. “They perceive the Bangladesh uprising and the political awakening of its students as a threat. As a result, they are fostering hatred towards Bangladesh,” he alleged.
In truth, there is no hatred—only deep concern—as religious minorities, particularly Hindus, face brutal violence in Bangladesh, while the government remains passive, seemingly endorsing the actions of extremist groups. This issue is not about "Hindutva" but rather the unchecked freedom granted to radical elements by the administration.
Nahid boldly claimed that the so-called "minority persecution narrative" was part of Delhi's alleged attempt to "disrupt Bangladesh's democratic nation-building process and support the fascist Awami League." However, the ongoing oppression of innocent Hindus, including attacks on their religious sites, appears to define what is now deemed "democratic" in Bangladesh.
Muhammad Yunus and his criticism of India
On December 4th, Muhammad Yunus, the head of Bangladesh's interim government, called for national unity in response to what he described as a coordinated "campaign" by "big countries" aimed at undermining the legitimacy of the movement that led to the formation of his administration. Rather than addressing the violent attacks on religious minorities, particularly Hindus, or focusing on efforts to restore peace and stability, the Nobel laureate chose to criticize India in an attempt to shift attention away from his government's failures.
While discussing the rising tensions, especially with India, Yunus refrained from naming any specific countries during his remarks to political party representatives. He accused "big countries" of spreading false information about his government, making an implicit reference to its neighbor. The meeting was attended by leaders from various political parties, including Jamaat-e-Islami, the BNP (Bangladesh Nationalist Party) led by former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, and left-wing groups.
Yunus alleged, “Many are not liking our freedom, the (new) independence, desperate efforts are being made to upset it,” according to reports. He asked the political representatives for their opinions on three important matters: the attack on the Bangladeshi mission in Agartala, accusations of minority persecution in the nation and propaganda against the nation in India and other countries. Yunus denounced what he described as efforts to depict the July-August protests which resulted in Sheikh Hasina’s ouster as prime minister as a destabilizing incident. “The quarters who did not like the uprising are trying to depict it domestically and internationally as something dangerous,” he voiced.
The severe attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh and the outright denial of these actions seem to reflect the stance of the interim administration. However, the world is neither unaware nor has it completely ignored the situation. Johnnie Moore, former Commissioner of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), recently criticized Bangladesh's interim government for its treatment of Hindus and other minorities, stating that “Muhammad Yunus is failing” and that “there isn’t a minority in the country that doesn’t feel under threat right now.” Similarly, former U.S. President and current president-elect Donald J. Trump echoed these concerns in his Diwali message.
Yunus supported collaborative efforts to challenge the narrative. “We have to tell the entire world that we are one. We achieved this together. This has now become a matter of our existence,” he urged. Yunus exemplifies a misalignment of priorities by focusing on concealing the horrific events that occurred during his reign under the guise of "countering the narrative," instead of addressing extremist forces and protecting the lives of religious minorities.
While Bangladesh’s interim government focused on accusing India and labeling facts as propaganda and misinformation, on December 3rd, Ramen Roy, an attorney for ISKCON leader Chinmoy Krishna Das, was severely injured on the court grounds in Chittagong while seeking bail for the detained monk. Islamist lawyers had previously threatened anyone who took up the case, following the murder of Saiful Islam Ali, who had chosen to defend Das.
Meanwhile, a Muslim mob in Doarabazar, Sunamganj district, Bangladesh, reportedly destroyed 130 homes and 20 Hindu temples on the evening of December 3rd, after a Facebook post allegedly deemed blasphemous and insulting to Islam. This attack added to the ongoing persecution of Hindus in the country. Even the Hindu community’s celebration of Durga Puja was disrupted, with threatening letters demanding Jaziya taxes sent to them.
Additionally, jihadi groups called for a ban on public celebrations during the festival, claiming it disturbed the non-Muslim majority and harmed the environment. They also demanded that temples publicly display anti-India statements to demonstrate loyalty to Bangladesh.
The anti-quota protests, which later escalated into anti-Hindu violence following Sheikh Hasina’s departure, have intensified with the interim government's support. By blaming India, the government seeks to divert attention from the violence it has allowed to persist within its borders, especially targeting marginalized minorities. It continues to provide cover for the forces it has unleashed against Hindus.
Komentáře