In the aftermath of the fall of the Sheikh Hasina government in Bangladesh, there has been a tsunami of fake news circulating in Indian mainstream media outlets and among social media users, targeting internal matters in Bangladesh. Given the transboundary nature of this fake news and its implications for Bangladesh-India bilateral relations, it was expected that India would take appropriate measures to curb its spread. However, India鈥檚 failure to address this issue became remarkably obvious after the attack on the Agartala Bangladeshi Mission. This incident highlights the urgent need to counter the rise of fake news to maintain the good neighbourliness between these two nations, traditionally viewed as friendly neighbours.
India has reportedly garnered a global reputation for being a significant source of fake news. The 2024 Global Risks Report by the World Economic Forum designates India as the nation most vulnerable to the pervasive threats of misinformation and disinformation. The propagation of fake news targeting Bangladesh is not new in India but has reached an unprecedented height since the collapse of the Sheikh Hasina regime. Despite relentless efforts by fact-checkers from both Bangladesh and abroad, Indian media outlets have not altered their approach to the circulation of fake news.
The fake news emanating from India primarily focuses on minority-related issues, Bangladesh鈥檚 interim government, its foreign policy, its political system and even Bangladesh-India relations. Alarmingly, prominent Indian media outlets appear to have joined this campaign alongside obscure media platforms. It does not come as a surprise that political leaders and rightist groups in India are buying the fake news, leading to deteriorating India-Bangladesh relations. The recent incidents at the Bangladeshi diplomatic missions in Kolkata and Agartala might be viewed as a by-product of the tensions that have been exacerbated by the widespread circulation of fake news, especially those related to the arrest of the expelled former ISKCON leader Chinmoy Krishna Das.
While the interim government is struggling to restore the rule of law and economic stability following a 15-year authoritarian regime marred by unprecedented financial irregularities, the spread of fake news from India poses significant security and governance threats to Bangladesh. While no direct evidence links the Indian government to this surge, its inaction 鈥� coupled with ongoing support for the ousted Sheikh Hasina, who is allegedly using her refuge in India to destabilise Bangladesh despite facing an arrest warrant for crimes against humanity 鈥� suggests implicit endorsement of these media campaigns.
The transboundary nature of the fake news campaign raises questions about India鈥檚 legal obligation to curb its spread under international law. Although transnational fake news is not a new phenomenon, international law remains largely underdeveloped in this area. Two international treaties 鈥� the 1936 International Convention on the Use of Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace and the 1953 Convention on the International Right of Correction 鈥� address fake news but lack widespread ratification. Unfortunately, neither Bangladesh nor India is a party to these treaties, leaving them ineffective in the current context.
In such cases, the principle of non-intervention, a norm of customary international law that is binding on all the states, offers some guidance. This principle prohibits states from engaging in acts of intervention, whether direct or indirect, in the internal affairs of another state. It is increasingly accepted that the dissemination of transnational fake news is being recognised as a potential act of coercion that may qualify as an intervention under this principle.
The 1981 UNGA Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States, voted positively by both Bangladesh and India, reinforces this position. It mandates states to abstain from defamatory campaigns or hostile propaganda intended to interfere in another state鈥檚 internal affairs. While this UN Declaration was initially championed by global south nations, its principles are increasingly gaining traction among global north states in the face of the threat of transnational fake news.
The key question now is whether the circulation of fake news can be attributed to the Indian government. While private Indian media outlets are primarily responsible for disseminating fake news, their activities appear to align with and indirectly advance the broader geopolitical interests of the Indian government. Politically speaking, an unstable Bangladesh serves the interests of Sheikh Hasina, the Awami League and potentially the Indian government, which may, as has been seen by many political commentators, favour the political rehabilitation of the Awami League in Bangladesh. This may partly explain the Indian government鈥檚 inaction in curbing the circulation of transnational fake news.
Furthermore, since Indian private media outlets operate under regulatory frameworks controlled by the Indian government, India had the full capacity to regulate or minimise the circulation of fake news from the very beginning. Its apparent persistent inaction in this regard amounts to a deliberate omission, falling short of its due diligence obligations and constituting indirect interference in Bangladesh鈥檚 domestic affairs. In other words, India鈥檚 omission to regulate fake news is indirect interference in Bangladesh鈥檚 domestic affairs.
At this juncture, the key concern is whether regulating fake news would infringe on freedom of expression. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under both international and Indian law. Article 19 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights permits restrictions on free expression to protect the rights or reputations of others, national security, public order, or public health or morals. Article 20 further prohibits propaganda for war and incitement to national, racial or religious hatred.
It indicates that the Indian government could reasonably control and prevent the circulation of transnational fake news. Doing so would also fulfil India鈥檚 responsibility to protect the rights of individuals affected by such fake news.
Furthermore, the Indian constitution similarly allows for restrictions on the freedom of expression under Article 19. It includes grounds such as the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence. Thus, the Indian government is not legally barred from addressing transnational fake news. On the contrary, its inaction may violate its constitutional obligations to 鈥榤aintain just and honourable relations between nations,鈥� as outlined in Article 51 of the Indian constitution.
It is now imperative for the Indian government to constrain the circulation of fake news. It is not only affecting the internal matters of Bangladesh but also overshadowing actual news that may require proper attention. India must admit that its fake news propagation is affecting its bilateral relations with Bangladesh. To remedy the already damaged image of the Indian government, there is no alternative but to immediately regulate transnational fake news while acknowledging the new realities facing the country. The sooner India accepts this reality, the better it will be for both countries.
It would not be surprising that the international community would disregard the genuine news related to the Indian interests in Bangladesh, taking lessons from the fable of 鈥楾he Shepherd and the Tiger鈥�.
India should also accept the fact that its fake news propagation is actually affecting its bilateral relations with Bangladesh. In order to remedy the already damaged image of the Indian government in Bangladesh, there is no alternative but to immediately regulate transnational fake news while acknowledging the new realities facing the country. The sooner India accepts this reality, the better it will be for both countries.
听
Quazi Omar Foysal is an international law expert, currently serving as a lecturer at American International University-Bangladesh and practising as an advocate at the Supreme Court of Bangladesh.