¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

TULSI Gabbard, the newly appointed US Director of National Intelligence, has recently made inflammatory and baseless remarks regarding the treatment of religious minorities in Bangladesh. In an interview with NDTV, she alleged that religious minorities in Bangladesh face systemic persecution and killings, linking the situation to the ideology of an Islamic caliphate. These assertions not only distort the socio-political landscape of Bangladesh but also serve as a stark example of selective outrage — ignoring the far more systemic and institutionalised oppression of religious minorities in India.

Prominent South Asian geopolitical analysts have criticised Gabbard’s comments as misleading and politically motivated. Dr Arjun Chatterjee, a professor of international relations at Georgetown University, remarked:

‘Bangladesh has a history of religious coexistence, and while challenges exist, the government has consistently taken steps to mitigate extremism. Gabbard’s statements ignore the fact that no state-sponsored pogroms exist in Bangladesh, unlike what we have seen in India with repeated incidents of religious violence.’

Furthermore, Dr Sarah Whitman, an expert on South Asian affairs, added, ‘One must question why figures like Gabbard remain silent on the institutionalised marginalisation of Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians in India. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) are glaring examples of exclusionary policies that disproportionately target minorities.’

Bangladesh has long been known for its cultural and religious diversity, with Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians living in relative harmony. While sporadic incidents of religious violence occur — as they do in most multi-religious societies — these are neither state-sponsored nor reflective of a systemic pattern. The Bangladeshi government has consistently demonstrated a commitment to countering religious extremism and protecting minority rights.

Legal frameworks ensure religious freedom, and Bangladesh’s counterterrorism initiatives have been widely praised. International allies, including the US, have worked closely with Bangladesh to combat extremism. Yet, instead of acknowledging these efforts, Gabbard’s rhetoric dangerously aligns with the broader agenda of anti-Bangladesh propaganda emanating from certain Indian political factions.

Before accusing Bangladesh, Gabbard should have turned her attention to the state of religious minorities in India, where Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians face systemic discrimination. According to a 2022 Human Rights Watch report, India has witnessed a sharp rise in anti-Muslim violence, fuelled by Hindu nationalist rhetoric. The 2020 Delhi riots, in which over 50 Muslims were killed, remain a glaring example of this intolerance.

India’s marginalisation of religious minorities is not limited to mob violence. It is institutionalised through government policies such as:

The Revocation of Article 370: Stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special status, leading to widespread human rights violations.

The Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register of Citizens: These laws disproportionately affect Muslims, effectively creating a mechanism to render millions stateless.

The 1984 anti-Sikh riots: State-backed pogroms that saw thousands of Sikhs massacred, with justice still elusive decades later.

Christian persecution: Attacks on churches, anti-conversion laws, and intimidation of Christian missionaries continue unabated.

Contrast this with Bangladesh, where Christian institutions operate freely, and religious conversion remains a personal choice rather than a criminal offence.

Gabbard’s statements align closely with the principles of propaganda as outlined by Edward Bernays in his seminal work,ÌýPropaganda (1928). Bernays describes how selective dissemination of information can manipulate public perception:

‘The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.’

By focusing exclusively on Bangladesh while ignoring India’s well-documented human rights abuses, Gabbard engages in a form of cognitive dissonance that perpetuates biased narratives. Noam Chomsky, a leading voice in media criticism, once stated:

‘Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.’

Gabbard’s remarks exemplify how misinformation can be wielded as a tool to shape geopolitical narratives, rather than to promote objective truth.

Throughout history, state-backed propaganda has been used to control narratives about religious persecution. Indian media, influenced by ruling nationalist sentiments, frequently exaggerates or misrepresents the conditions of minorities in Bangladesh to distract from domestic issues. The infamous ‘Bangladeshi infiltrator’ rhetoric used by India’s ruling party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), serves to justify exclusionary policies while demonising Bangladesh.

Political scientist Dr James Faulkner notes, ‘By externalizing blame and portraying Bangladesh as an extremist hub, Indian nationalists effectively shift focus from their own government’s failures in protecting religious minorities.’

This narrative benefits political factions in India while harming diplomatic relations between the two neighbouring countries.

Philosophers from Aristotle to John Rawls have emphasised the necessity of fairness in justice. If human rights advocacy is to be meaningful, it must apply equally across all nations. Selective outrage — condemning one nation while ignoring similar or worse infractions in another — is inherently unjust.

As the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche famously warned, ‘Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.’

If Gabbard genuinely seeks to defend religious minorities, she must be willing to scrutinise India’s systemic failings as much as she scrutinises Bangladesh. True justice demands consistency, not political convenience.

Rather than fuelling misinformation, international leaders should work towards fostering constructive diplomatic dialogue. Bangladesh and India share historical and economic ties, and reckless accusations serve only to destabilise relations. Instead of falling for politically motivated rhetoric, global audiences must demand fact-based discussions that promote peace and cooperation.

The international community has a responsibility to challenge biased narratives and advocate for fairness in addressing religious persecution. As George Orwell famously said, ‘In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.’

Bangladesh has no need for external validation, but it will not remain silent in the face of baseless accusations. The world must recognise the dangers of one-sided narratives and engage in fair, fact-based discussions on minority rights in South Asia. If concerns about religious persecution are genuine, then scrutiny must be applied equally to all nations — including India.

Rather than engaging in inflammatory rhetoric, figures like Gabbard should focus on fostering diplomatic relationships built on mutual respect and objective analysis. Until then, Bangladesh will continue to uphold its commitment to religious harmony and challenge those who seek to distort its global image.

Ìý

HM Nazmul Alam is an academic, journalist and political analyst.