Mahfuz Anam
The only conclusion that can be drawn from much of the Indian media’s recent coverage of Bangladesh is that it is a Hindu-hating country. The venom that is being spewed, the language that is being used, the hatred that is being spread, and the demeaning stereotype that is being portrayed about us seem geared towards generating a hatred for Bangladeshis among the Indian people. The long-term impact of this, along with its backlash here, will be very difficult to neutralise.
What is India’s gain from such stigmatisation of its neighbour? Isn’t it harming both our countries? It is harming us because it demonises Bangladesh. It is harming India because it proves once again that India wants to dominate its neighbours and will not allow any of them to choose their own policies. These policies are not inherently against India, per se, but are merely expressions of each nation’s own way of moving forward.
My Nepali journalist friends tell a story of Indian attitude and behaviour that are far from flattering, to say the least. Public perception in Bhutan is not favourable towards India either. The Maldives’ insistence that India’s meagre military presence must end is as clear a message as it can get. Doesn’t the election of the new leadership in Sri Lanka also carry a special message for our big neighbour? Together, do these not form a common view of how India’s neighbours perceive it? Should this not compel India’s policymakers to spend more time understanding their neighbours, rather than dismissing contrarian sentiments as inconsequential, baseless or rooted in jealousy—or, in Bangladesh’s case, ingratitude?
Until August 4, 2024, Bangladesh was considered, according to Indian leaders and media, a very good neighbour, with bilateral relations and our friendship reaching new heights. What changed to reduce Bangladesh from a good neighbour to a most vilified one?
It is obviously due to the regime change that happened in Bangladesh on August 5. However, it was not a conspiratorial change of power, despite what India and its media believe. They are convinced that Pakistan, China or the US orchestrated it, not the people of Bangladesh. The fact that ours was a stronger demonstration of public will than the People Power Revolution that overthrew Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines many years ago, or the Arab Spring that toppled Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, did not find any receptive heart or mind in our neighbour. Our people did something in weeks that others took months if not years to accomplish. That was the power of July.
India does not understand the power of our students because it overlooks the history of our student movements. Our students defied Pakistan’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, within a year of its founding to establish Bangla as a state language. They toppled Gen Ayub Khan’s “Iron Regime,” turned Bangabandhu’s Six-Point Movement (1966) and the students’ 11-Point Movement (1969) the most powerful movements that even Pakistan’s military could not suppress. Our students were the strongest force behind the Awami League’s victory in the 1970 election and, of course, they along with the peasant-based youth spearheaded the formation of the armed struggle during our Liberation War.
The glorious tradition of student activism continued after Bangladesh’s establishment, with students resisting military dictatorships, autocracy and oppression, and supporting democracy, rights and social equality.
So, what happened during the “36 Days of July” is a continuation of the same tradition and even more. The latest uprising was far more energetic, vigorous and all-encompassing. Nobody believed that the Hasina government could be toppled through mass demonstration. But the students did it, and that is where lies its uniqueness.
What India is doing is refusing to acknowledge that we have the right to change our government democratically. While the regime change may not have followed the usual electoral route—which the former prime minister herself prevented (ironically, if she had allowed for the holding of free elections and lost, she might have at least remained in the country instead of facing the humiliation of fleeing)—it was an expression of public will that elections typically reflect. It was democracy in full play.
What India is doing is refusing to acknowledge that we have the right to change our government democratically. While the regime change may not have followed the usual electoral route—which the former prime minister herself prevented (ironically, if she had allowed for the holding of free elections and lost, she might have at least remained in the country instead of facing the humiliation of fleeing)—it was an expression of public will that elections typically reflect. It was democracy in full play.
From the outset, India did not accept this. Instead, it embraced conspiracy theories, which continue to dominate its thinking.
We all know Sheikh Hasina fled and her government collapsed on August 5. Prof Muhammad Yunus took over on August 8. The three-day gap in forming the interim government created a law and order vacuum during which several Awami League leaders, including members of minority communities, were attacked, and their properties vandalised. While this is true, it is also true that many of those targeted and attacked were Awami League activists, and some were also special beneficiaries of the discredited regime (this, however, does not justify the attacks on them). So, the incidents should not be painted as fully communal—as it was made out to be. Such attacks would not have occurred had the police force maintained order.
However, the events of the first few days clouded the Indian government’s and media’s perception of the changed situation in Bangladesh. Instead of waiting, observing, and judging the new leadership, the Indian media went on a spree of misjudging, misinterpreting, and misreporting.
In my earlier interviews with respected Indian media leaders, I pleaded that they should see Bangladesh not through the “lens of Hasina but through the lens of democracy.” Unfortunately, my pleas fell on deaf ears, and the tirade continued. Indian media outlets fed one another and reinforced the story that Hasina’s fall was the work of Jamaat-e-Islami and its student wing Chhatra Shibir, assisted by Pakistan’s ISI. Students might have started the movement, they argue, but they were soon outmanoeuvred by the conspirators. This was the narrative of the ousted prime minister that the Indian media swallowed hook, line, and sinker.
As the narrative of “Hindu killing” dominates Indian media and threatens bilateral relations, here is what the Bangladesh Hindu Buddhist Christian Unity Council, the most well-organised body of the minority communities, reported on September 19, covering the period from August 4-20. This was the period during which the interim administration was just organising itself, and was at its weakest. The council’s report said that a total of 2,010 communal incidents occurred in which nine people were killed, four women were raped, 69 places of worship were attacked, 915 homes were vandalised, 953 business establishment were attacked, 38 cases of physical attack occurred, and 21 properties were occupied.
Prothom Alo, Bangladesh’s most respected Bangla daily, conducted its own investigation—using 64 of its own correspondents in 64 districts and 69 upazilas (sub-districts)—covering the same period (August 5-20) and found evidence of attacks on 1,068 homes and businesses. In addition, there were 22 attacks on places of worship (temples, churches, and prayer places of the Ahmadiyya sect). This daily’s own correspondents personally visited 546 sites (51 percent) and covered the rest through reliable sources. There were two deaths: one was of a retired school teacher in Bagerhat, Mrinal Kanti Chatterjee, and the other was of Swapan Kumar Biswas of Paikgachha, Khulna.
All attacks on minorities are totally unacceptable. While Bangladesh must work to ensure security for all, does this justify the Indian media’s portrayal of Bangladesh? Are attacks on minorities not a reality in India too? Consider the Godhra train burning incident and the riots that followed, which alone killed 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus—rendering tens of thousands of people homeless. According to conservative figures by India’s National Human Rights Commission, from 2002 to 2024, as many as 31 riots occurred in India, of which 20 were between Hindus and Muslims. Did the Bangladeshi media respond to that the way the Indian media is responding now?
The recent events that led to the desecration of Bangladeshi flag by demonstrators in India, and of Indian flag by some students in our university campuses, the killing of a Muslim lawyer in Chattogram and a Hindu doctor in Dhaka, were triggered by the arrest of a former ISKCON leader. The attack on the Bangladesh Assistant High Commission in Agartala is condemnable and could and should have been prevented. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s suggestion to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to ask for UN peacekeepers to intervene in Bangladesh is an insult that has further worsened the situation.
The chief adviser’s call for national unity and the consensus of all political parties to unite to protect our sovereignty is a clear indication of how seriously we consider the situation. It is also an indication of how things may take a seriously wrong turn.
Irrespective of what they may have been, the incidents—even though they shouldn’t have happened at all in the first place—were made far worse by a belligerent Indian media. What has shocked me is their refusal to fact-check what they are writing, broadcasting or televising—a basic duty of any journalist. In many interviews or talk shows, certain incidents were discussed with loaded questions, where footage was shown of unrelated events to make Bangladesh look communal. Recently, on RT India’s website, footage of an idol of Shiva being broken into pieces was shown, claiming it was from a Hindu temple in Bangladesh. The truth is, it was footage from a ritual being performed at another temple in Sultanpur, Bardhaman, India. We debunked the story on our website, but no action, let alone regret, came from RT India.
The incidents will no doubt subside. The rhetoric will also, perhaps, acquire a more sobering hue. The media, hopefully, will return to its ethical values. However, the attitudinal, psychological, and most importantly emotional impact of the contrived narrative of the Indian media will leave a long and sad impression here. Being power-drunk and click-driven, the Indian media may not think much about it, but the professional diplomats hopefully will.
Daily Star
