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 being used, and the demeaning stereotypes being portrayed seem geared towards generating hatred for Bangladeshis among Indian people. The long-term impact of this, along with the backlash in Bangladesh, will be very difficult to neutralise.
What does India gain from such stigmatisation of its neighbour? It harms both nations: demonising Bangladesh damages its image, while India’s actions reinforce perceptions that it seeks to dominate its neighbours and dictate their policies. These policies are not inherently anti-India but represent the sovereign choices of each nation.
Nepali journalists share unflattering accounts of Indian attitudes, Bhutan harbours an unfavourable perception, and the Maldives has demanded the end of India’s military presence. Sri Lanka’s recent electoral outcomes also reflect regional discontent. Together, these point to a pattern in how India is perceived. Shouldn’t this prompt Indian policymakers to invest more effort in understanding their neighbours instead of dismissing grievances as jealousy or ingratitude?
Until August 2024, Bangladesh was hailed as a good neighbour, with bilateral ties at their peak. What changed? The regime change in Bangladesh on August 5 seems to have prompted this shift. However, it was not a conspiratorial takeover orchestrated by foreign powers, as India and its media claim, but a robust demonstration of public will. The overthrow of the Hasina government was a continuation of Bangladesh’s tradition of powerful student-led movements. From resisting Pakistan’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, to toppling Gen Ayub Khan’s regime and supporting the Liberation War, student activism has shaped the nation’s destiny.
The “36 Days of July,” which led to the fall of the Hasina regime, was an unprecedented movement that united people across the country. India’s refusal to acknowledge this democratic expression of public will is troubling. Instead, Indian media embraced conspiracy theories that undermined the legitimacy of the change, portraying it as orchestrated by Pakistan’s ISI or Jamaat-e-Islami. This narrative dismisses the agency of Bangladesh’s people, denying them the right to shape their government.
Sheikh Hasina’s government collapsed on August 5, and Prof Muhammad Yunus assumed leadership on August 8. The three-day power vacuum saw attacks on Awami League leaders and minority communities. While these incidents are unacceptable, portraying them solely as communal violence overlooks that many targeted were also beneficiaries of the discredited regime. The interim administration struggled to restore order, but the Indian media’s response was to exaggerate the events, further straining bilateral ties.
A report by the Bangladesh Hindu Buddhist Christian Unity Council documented 2,010 communal incidents from August 4-20, including nine deaths, rapes, and attacks on homes, businesses, and places of worship. Prothom Alo conducted its own investigation, verifying incidents in 64 districts and finding evidence of attacks on 1,068 homes and businesses, as well as 22 places of worship. While these figures highlight a failure to protect minorities, it does not justify the Indian media’s narrative branding Bangladesh as inherently communal.
India, too, has its share of communal violence, including the 2002 Gujarat riots, which left hundreds dead and displaced thousands. Yet, the Bangladeshi media has not weaponised these events to tarnish India’s image. The Indian media’s portrayal of Bangladesh as a Hindu-hating country ignores its own vulnerabilities and is a disservice to regional stability.
The desecration of national flags, violence against lawyers, and attacks on diplomatic missions have further escalated tensions. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s suggestion for UN peacekeepers to intervene in Bangladesh is both insulting and inflammatory. Such actions only deepen the mistrust between the two countries.
The interim administration in Bangladesh has called for national unity to address the situation and safeguard sovereignty. However, Indian media continues to fuel tensions with sensationalised coverage. In one instance, RT India aired footage of a Shiva idol being destroyed, claiming it was from Bangladesh. In reality, the footage was from India’s Bardhaman district. Despite debunking the story, no retraction or apology followed, reflecting a disregard for journalistic ethics.
The emotional and psychological impact of the Indian media’s narrative will have lasting consequences. While the rhetoric may eventually subside, the damage to trust and goodwill will linger. Indian media, driven by sensationalism and clicks, appears indifferent to the fallout of its actions. Diplomats on both sides must work to repair relations before the situation deteriorates further.