Each December, the European magazine The Economist announces its “Country of the Year” award. Unlike awards based on wealth or happiness, this recognition, as described by The Economist, honors the nation that has shown the most improvement over the past year.
This year, the award went to Bangladesh. The reason? According to The Economist, the country's people "toppled" an authoritarian regime. However, notably absent from the magazine’s assessment was any mention of the ongoing persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh.
Muhammed Yunus is heading the caretaker government in Bangladesh. Its real GDP growth is projected to dip to 3.8% in FY25 from 5.8% in FY23. (PTI Image)
The Misguided Notion of 'Improvement'
The Economist states that the award does not recognize the wealthiest or happiest nations, but rather those that have made the most significant progress. This year, the magazine argued that Bangladesh deserved the accolade for overthrowing an "authoritarian regime" and moving towards a "technocratic interim government" led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus. The magazine also praised the student-led protests that ousted Sheikh Hasina.
However, it also claimed that Hasina’s removal had “restored order” and brought “economic stability,” seen as a sign of progress. This claim overlooks several issues: Bangladesh has recently “demanded” 50,000 tonnes of rice from India and accumulated millions in unpaid electricity bills to the Adani Group. Moreover, the country’s textile industry is in disarray. It’s unclear what "economic stability" The Economist is referencing as a symbol of “progress.”
Interestingly, The Economist conveniently ignored the sharp rise in targeted violence against Bangladesh’s Hindu minority since Hasina’s ousting. Within just three days of the regime’s collapse, more than 205 attacks on Hindu temples, businesses, and homes were reported. OpIndia has extensively covered these incidents, documenting the atrocities faced by Hindus and other minorities since August 2024.
Examples include the vandalism of Lord Ganesha idols during a procession in Chittagong and the destruction of Durga idols in Pabna and Kishoreganj districts, reflecting the growing religious intolerance. Yet, The Economist failed to mention these events.
The question remains: can a nation truly be considered to have “improved” when its minority communities face rising violence and persecution? According to data presented in Parliament by the Ministry of External Affairs, attacks on minorities increased dramatically over three years. There were 47 reported attacks on Hindus in 2022, 302 in 2023 (a 545% rise compared to 2022), and 2,200 in 2024 (a 628% rise from 2023 and a staggering 4,580% rise compared to 2022). The Economist’s silence on these atrocities raises serious questions about its understanding of what constitutes progress.
Overlooking Atrocities Against Hindus
The struggles faced by Hindus in Bangladesh reflect a larger pattern of marginalization and persecution of the Hindu community across the subcontinent. In recent months, radical Islamist groups have escalated their attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh, using blasphemy allegations as a tool to intimidate individuals and Hindu organizations. Notable examples include the cases of Hridoy Pal and Ustad Mandal.
Even prominent Hindu organizations like ISKCON have been targeted. Efforts to ban ISKCON and the arrest of Hindu leader Chinmoy Krishna Das Prabhu underscore the systematic targeting of Hindu institutions. Additionally, the interim government’s use of fabricated sedition charges to suppress Hindu protests reveals a coordinated effort to undermine their freedoms.
The Selective Morality of the West
Despite mounting evidence, global bodies and media outlets have largely overlooked the persecution of Hindus. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has refrained from documenting these hate crimes, as highlighted in one of our recent reports. By failing to categorize the attacks as religiously motivated hate crimes, OHCHR has seemingly made a deliberate effort to downplay the ongoing violence. Instead, it focuses on broader communal narratives, conveniently removing the religious aspect of the atrocities.
Similarly, The Wire, an Indian publication led by American Siddharth Varadarajan, has minimized the severity of Hindu persecution in Bangladesh. Our recent exposé reveals how The Wire has consistently framed ethnic cleansing as either “exaggerated” or “politically motivated,” effectively absolving radical Islamist groups of responsibility. This downplaying of the violence misleads readers and perpetuates harmful narratives that diminish the suffering of Hindu minorities.
The BBC has also faced criticism for its coverage of anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh. A report by OpIndia highlighted how the BBC downplayed the deliberate targeting of Hindus, framing it as “political violence” instead of acknowledging its religious motivations. By attributing the violence to broader political unrest, the BBC has obscured the systemic persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh and lessened the accountability of both the interim government and the perpetrators.
Western media and institutions have long demonstrated a double standard when addressing violence against Hindus. Outlets like The Economist, The Wire, and the BBC have routinely downplayed the severity of atrocities against Hindus, often framing them as “political” or “economic unrest” while dismissing the religious context. These narratives not only misrepresent the scale of Hindu persecution but also shield the perpetrators from international accountability.
The Economist's Bias Against Hindus
The Economist often presents a narrative that overlooks or distorts the context of policies and events in India. For instance, it criticized the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), labeling it as discriminatory, while ignoring its primary goal of offering refuge to persecuted minorities from neighboring Islamic nations. This portrayal not only misrepresents the act but also obscures the ongoing systemic violence faced by Hindus and other non-Muslims in these countries.
The magazine’s coverage of Prime Minister Modi’s government follows a similar pattern of selective outrage. In articles like “How Narendra Modi is remaking India into a Hindu state,” The Economist accuses the administration of enabling vigilante violence against minorities, while downplaying its numerous welfare initiatives.
In reality, since PM Modi’s rise to power, marginalized communities—regardless of caste, religion, or background—have benefited the most from welfare schemes. However, publications like The Economist ignore these facts, pushing a narrative against the government driven by ideological differences.
The Economist has also targeted Hindu organizations such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), describing it as a “bigoted paramilitary group” in pieces like “Inside the RSS, the world’s most powerful volunteer group.” This characterization disregards the RSS’s extensive charitable work, which includes running schools, health clinics, and disaster relief programs.
Instead, the publication focuses on unproven allegations and conspiracy theories, promoting a climate of fear and mistrust. It similarly misrepresents Hindu organizations like the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal, falsely portraying them as oppressors. Additionally, The Economist dismissed “Love Jihad” as a “conspiracy theory,” ignoring numerous reports, including those from OpIndia, that document it as a dangerous reality. The VHP, Bajrang Dal, and other Hindu groups have a long history of providing essential support during crises and defending Hindus when under attack.
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of The Economist’s bias is its dismissal of Hindu cultural expressions as mere political tools. Articles about the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya or the promotion of religious tourism often frame these as efforts to solidify Hindu dominance. This perspective overlooks the profound cultural and spiritual significance these projects hold for millions of Indians. By trivializing these expressions of faith, The Economist distances its audience from understanding the pluralistic nature of Hinduism.
This ingrained bias against Hindus and Hindu organizations is a deliberate effort to distort India’s political and cultural reality, and it contributes to the rise of global anti-Hindu sentiments. By continually equating Hindutva with intolerance, The Economist perpetuates a narrative that undermines the significance of the Hindu community both in India and worldwide.
Accountability: A Necessity
The Economist's choice to name Bangladesh 'Country of the Year' while overlooking its rising anti-Hindu violence highlights the West's selective moral stance. By emphasizing superficial narratives of progress rather than acknowledging the harsh realities faced by persecuted minorities, The Economist has compromised its reputation as an unbiased observer.
International media and organizations must confront their biases and recognize the systemic oppression experienced by Hindu communities in countries where they are a minority. Media outlets should focus on honest reporting, avoiding the portrayal of Hindus in a negative light and refraining from downplaying crimes committed against them.
Comments