Skip to main content
A headline uploaded at 17:54 on January 11 in the online edition of Daily Prothom Alo reads: "Attacks on minorities—98% of vandalism politically motivated: Police investigation." The report states that between August 4 and August 20, among 1,415 complaints of attacks and vandalism against minorities, 98.4% were politically motivated, according to information provided by the Chief Advisor’s press wing.
But the press wing did not provide any explanation regarding why the term “politically motivated attacks and vandalism” was being used, or even what precisely constitutes “politically motivated attacks.” The Penal Code of Bangladesh contains no reference to any category such as political attack or political vandalism. Furthermore, before 2024, no one in Bangladesh had ever heard attacks on minorities described as “political attacks.” At best, grassroots political workers from certain parties would occasionally claim that minorities were attacked during elections because they were presumed to support a specific political party.
In reality, it was only in August 2024 that the term “political reason” for attacks on minority Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians in Bangladesh was officially heard from a credible source. And the person to say this was none other than Dr. Muhammad Yunus, appointed as Chief Advisor by the President under the current administration. Mr. Yunus, a globally recognized NGO personality, is celebrated for his Grameen Bank initiative, which won the Nobel Peace Prize—similar to how Wangari Maathai from Africa received the same award for planting millions of trees. After winning the prize, Maathai went on to plant even more trees.
Grameen Bank is not merely a microfinance institution providing low-interest loans; it also contributes indirectly to women’s empowerment. In a global context, women’s empowerment falls under the broader domain of human rights. Thus, protecting minorities is inherently part of a nation’s human rights obligations. Given Mr. Yunus’ extensive travels across many countries, especially in Europe and America, where NGOs receive substantial funding, he has interacted with diverse environments and societies. Therefore, he must have a broader understanding of how these nations protect minority rights.
If he now asserts that the attacks on minorities in Bangladesh after Sheikh Hasina’s downfall were politically motivated, it naturally raises the need for an explanation. What exactly constitutes a “political attack”? As previously noted, the Penal Code does not categorize any such offense. All forms of assault, vandalism, and murder fall under criminal offenses.
Even if attempts are made to categorize violence, vandalism, or murder as politically motivated outside the Penal Code, what precisely makes the attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh political? Are the perpetrators themselves political entities with policies targeting Hindus, and are they acting accordingly? Or are Hindus in Bangladesh considered a significant political force, making them a target?
In terms of numbers, there are over 20 million Hindus in Bangladesh, which is indeed a large population. But do Hindus in Bangladesh possess any real political power?
Even the common claim that Hindus vote exclusively for the Awami League raises the question—how many Hindus in Bangladesh can actually vote freely? In the last three elections, minorities, like the majority population, were unable to exercise their voting rights. After the 1970 and 1973 elections, have minorities ever truly been able to vote independently? In many places, directives are issued on the night before elections, instructing them not to vote. In such areas, usually only men and elderly women attempt to vote, because while one side warns them against going to the polling stations, the other side pressures them to vote. Thus, Hindus in Bangladesh must carefully balance their actions, especially in rural regions.
Since the political shift of 1975, the political empowerment of Hindus within political parties and government has followed a different trajectory. Before the dramatic political change on August 15, 1975, Hindus could secure positions and ranks in any political party based on merit, and distinguished figures could even hold ministerial positions. After the shift, however, successive King's Parties adopted a “token” approach toward Hindus. They began appointing one or two symbolic individuals to government positions or leadership roles, akin to exhibiting "baby crocodiles" as mere displays, using token Hindus for appearances. From 1972 to 1975, prominent figures like Phani Majumder and Manoranjan Dhar were ministers. In contrast, after 1975, Hindus were systematically sidelined—reduced to powerless ministers or political figureheads—as part of a deliberate strategy to politically disempower the community.
From 1991 onward, the Bangladesh Awami League followed a similar path. Though the Awami League is often portrayed as benefitting Hindus, even a cursory example exposes the reality of such claims. Has the Awami League not employed the same tactic of presenting symbolic figures as the post-1975 King's Parties did? Did they appoint any nationally recognized Hindu figures as ministers in their government? Instead, shopkeepers and schoolteachers were made ministers. The situation regarding major party positions mirrored this trend, with appointments given to individuals unknown not only to the nation but even to Hindus within their own localities.
However, in terms of employment discrimination, while the exclusion of Hindus has reached staggering proportions in the current era, such extremes were not observed before. Despite not receiving government jobs proportional to their population and educational attainment, Hindus in earlier times still managed to hold positions like Vice-Chancellor, Secretary, and Managing Director of banks.
When it comes to political power and civil rights, even considering the persistent association of Hindus with India—a country where communal riots occur—the rights and privileges enjoyed by minorities in India after Bangladesh's political shift in 1975 remain unimaginable here. In India, a minority figure like A.P.J. Abdul Kalam could become President, or someone like Salman Khurshid could serve as Foreign Minister. No one in Bangladesh could ever conceive of a similar scenario—a minority holding such high offices.
Take the example of Firhad Hakim, Mayor of the capital city of West Bengal, Kolkata, and a minister as well. In contrast, imagining a Hindu mayor not just in Dhaka, but even in divisional cities like Khulna, Rajshahi, Chittagong, or Barisal is beyond the realm of possibility today. Firhad Hakim’s political clout in India dwarfs the collective political influence of over 20 million Hindus in Bangladesh. Reflecting on this brings to mind Syed Mujtaba Ali’s story Padotika, where a scholar presents a mathematical puzzle: “The British Governor’s dog costs seventy-five rupees a month. If the dog has three legs, how much is spent per leg?” Fearing a complex calculation, the student quickly replies, “Twenty-five rupees per leg.” The scholar responds approvingly, then adds, “Now tell me, as a learned Brahmin supporting eight dependents, my entire family survives on twenty-five rupees a month. So, how many of my family’s legs are equal to the Governor’s dog’s leg?”
Similarly, if a scholar (if any such figure existed in Bangladesh today) calculated how many toes of Firhad Hakim’s political stature are equal to the entire political strength of more than 20 million Hindus in Bangladesh, the arithmetic would be straightforward. But is there an end to this simple equation?
In my previous writings, I have reiterated this truth, and I say it again: the young Hindu generation of Bangladesh no longer wishes to solve this equation. They aspire to end it altogether.
For the sake of correcting the grave errors of history and building a harmonious society on this land, it is better for everyone to descend into the realm of truth instead of crafting “political illusions” like a mythical golden stone bowl. Instead of placing the burden on a skillful police force, collective engagement with justice is necessary.
Above all, it must be stated that the current Chief of Police is not only an educated individual but also an international-level instructor in policing. He will undoubtedly refrain from placing the metaphorical gun on the shoulders of the police force and will work to ensure justice for actual assaults, murders, and acts of harassment, thereby helping to liberate the minds of minority citizens from fear.
Additionally, it is pertinent to recall a crucial fact at this moment: following the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government on the 5th, it was the Chief of the Army who first addressed the nation. In his speech, he urged the people to trust him, assuring that he would guarantee everyone's security. It was under this assurance that the minorities, including Hindus, remained in their homes rather than fleeing. In reality, it was he who ultimately formed this government. Therefore, it is his responsibility to end the farce of “political assaults” targeting minorities and Hindus and to ensure they receive justice as citizens for the wrongs they have endured.
Author: State Award-Winning Journalist, Editor, Sarakhon and The Present World - স্বদেশ রায়
Translator: The Occasional.
Comments
Post a Comment