Bangladesh Defense Forum- Copy to clipboard
- Thread starter
- #226
Indian media, relations between Bangladesh and India
SINCE the fall of the Awami League regime on August 5 amid a student-led mass uprising, there has been a noticeable shift in India-Bangladesh relations. Historically regarded as each other’s closest allies, the two countries share significant geographic and cultural ties. However, tensions have...
www.newagebd.net
Indian media, relations between Bangladesh and India
05 December, 2024, 00:00
India’s media needs to understand the new reality shaping Bangladesh as it moves forward. Failing to accept this reality or continuing efforts to destabilise the situation will not benefit anyone, writes Mahtab Uddin Chowdhury
SINCE the fall of the Awami League regime on August 5 amid a student-led mass uprising, there has been a noticeable shift in India-Bangladesh relations. Historically regarded as each other’s closest allies, the two countries share significant geographic and cultural ties. However, tensions have occasionally surfaced, with a considerable portion of the Bangladeshi population perceiving India as the more advantaged party in the bilateral relationship. This perception gained traction during the 15-year rule of the Awami League, a period marked by allegations that India received a disproportionate share of benefits from bilateral agreements. Critics have suggested that this dominance was part of a strategy to maintain AL’s hold on power, even amidst three consecutive sham elections.
In the current reality shaped by the fall of Sheikh Hasina, there is growing anticipation among the Bangladeshi people for more equitable and mutually beneficial bilateral relations with India. The focus has shifted towards fostering a balanced partnership that departs from past grievances. However, this transition has brought with it significant criticism of India’s perceived stance as a supporter of Sheikh Hasina during her political decline.
This discontent intensified when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted a congratulatory message to Dr Yunus upon his assumption of office as Bangladesh’s chief adviser while simultaneously calling for the safety and security of minorities in Bangladesh. This gesture, though diplomatically framed, sparked heated reactions from various quarters within Bangladesh, as it was seen as an overt intervention in the country’s internal affairs.
The situation has been further exacerbated by Indian media’s extensive coverage of Bangladesh’s current political and social instability, often framing it as a crisis centred around attacks on minority groups, particularly Hindus. These reports frequently highlight alleged instances of torture, killings, and discriminatory treatment of minorities but are criticised for lacking comprehensive data to substantiate such claims. This narrative appears to echo the stance promoted by the Awami League, which often positioned itself as the sole guardian of minority safety in Bangladesh. By perpetuating these assumptions without sufficient evidence, Indian media risks fuelling tensions and reinforcing a narrative that minorities in Bangladesh are not safe in this current situation. This approach not only overlooks the complexities of the current situation but also undermines the potential for a constructive and forward-looking relationship between the two nations.
On the other hand, the reality presents a starkly different picture. While it is undeniable that some attacks on minorities have occurred, there is little concrete evidence to establish the motives behind these incidents conclusively. A closer examination of most of these cases often reveals that the victims were directly connected to Awami League politics, with many holding positions within the party’s committees.
This connection complicates the narrative put forth by some media outlets. While any act of violence — regardless of motive — is unequivocally unacceptable and deserving of strong condemnation, the assumption that these attacks were solely motivated by the victims’ status as minorities fails to account for critical contextual factors.
Instead, evidence suggests that these individuals were targeted not because of their religious or ethnic identities but due to their affiliations or roles within the AL. This distinction does not diminish the seriousness of the attacks but highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of the circumstances. Addressing such incidents requires focusing on both ensuring justice for the victims and avoiding sweeping generalisations that could exacerbate communal tensions or serve political agendas.
Most recently, the arrest of a former ISKCON leader, Chinmoy Krishna Das, has further intensified the situation. According to government spokesperson Asif Mahmud, Das was arrested on charges of sedition, not as a community or religious leader. However, Indian media once again framed this as an anti-minority action by the Bangladeshi government, fuelling tensions.
The situation escalated when protests erupted outside the Chattogram court premises, resulting in the tragic killing of a lawyer by supporters of the Hindu monk on November 26. While fears of nationwide unrest began to surface, the collective response from political parties, religious groups, and civil society showcased a remarkable sense of maturity and unity, successfully de-escalating tensions.
Despite this, Indian media persisted in its efforts to misrepresent the incidents, spreading misinformation and attempting to construct narratives detached from the realities on the ground. The repercussions of this disinformation campaign have already manifested in troubling ways. For instance, members of the Hindu Sangharsh Samity in Agartala attacked the Bangladesh Assistant High Commission in India’s Tripura, highlighting the real-world implications of such inflammatory reporting.
Additionally, growing tensions in border areas have disrupted the transfer of import-export goods, posing a direct threat to the economies of both nations. This situation underscores the urgent need for responsible reporting and diplomatic efforts to prevent misinformation from derailing bilateral relations and fuelling unnecessary conflict.
Whatever Indian media has been proposing or portraying is a pure reflection of illicit journalism, bringing no benefit to either country. Having a countering mechanism from Bangladesh to address this disinformation is imperative and requires a comprehensive approach involving the government, media houses, CSOs, student alliances, and political parties.
More importantly, India’s media needs to understand the new reality shaping Bangladesh as it moves forward. Failing to accept this reality or continuing efforts to destabilise the situation will not benefit even the minorities living in Bangladesh. Meanwhile, the reality of Indian Muslims remains far below expectations, a fact that Indian media often overlooks.
Mahtab Uddin Chowdhury is an independent researcher specialising in South Asian politics, local governance and media freedom.
05 December, 2024, 00:00
India’s media needs to understand the new reality shaping Bangladesh as it moves forward. Failing to accept this reality or continuing efforts to destabilise the situation will not benefit anyone, writes Mahtab Uddin Chowdhury
SINCE the fall of the Awami League regime on August 5 amid a student-led mass uprising, there has been a noticeable shift in India-Bangladesh relations. Historically regarded as each other’s closest allies, the two countries share significant geographic and cultural ties. However, tensions have occasionally surfaced, with a considerable portion of the Bangladeshi population perceiving India as the more advantaged party in the bilateral relationship. This perception gained traction during the 15-year rule of the Awami League, a period marked by allegations that India received a disproportionate share of benefits from bilateral agreements. Critics have suggested that this dominance was part of a strategy to maintain AL’s hold on power, even amidst three consecutive sham elections.
In the current reality shaped by the fall of Sheikh Hasina, there is growing anticipation among the Bangladeshi people for more equitable and mutually beneficial bilateral relations with India. The focus has shifted towards fostering a balanced partnership that departs from past grievances. However, this transition has brought with it significant criticism of India’s perceived stance as a supporter of Sheikh Hasina during her political decline.
This discontent intensified when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted a congratulatory message to Dr Yunus upon his assumption of office as Bangladesh’s chief adviser while simultaneously calling for the safety and security of minorities in Bangladesh. This gesture, though diplomatically framed, sparked heated reactions from various quarters within Bangladesh, as it was seen as an overt intervention in the country’s internal affairs.
The situation has been further exacerbated by Indian media’s extensive coverage of Bangladesh’s current political and social instability, often framing it as a crisis centred around attacks on minority groups, particularly Hindus. These reports frequently highlight alleged instances of torture, killings, and discriminatory treatment of minorities but are criticised for lacking comprehensive data to substantiate such claims. This narrative appears to echo the stance promoted by the Awami League, which often positioned itself as the sole guardian of minority safety in Bangladesh. By perpetuating these assumptions without sufficient evidence, Indian media risks fuelling tensions and reinforcing a narrative that minorities in Bangladesh are not safe in this current situation. This approach not only overlooks the complexities of the current situation but also undermines the potential for a constructive and forward-looking relationship between the two nations.
On the other hand, the reality presents a starkly different picture. While it is undeniable that some attacks on minorities have occurred, there is little concrete evidence to establish the motives behind these incidents conclusively. A closer examination of most of these cases often reveals that the victims were directly connected to Awami League politics, with many holding positions within the party’s committees.
This connection complicates the narrative put forth by some media outlets. While any act of violence — regardless of motive — is unequivocally unacceptable and deserving of strong condemnation, the assumption that these attacks were solely motivated by the victims’ status as minorities fails to account for critical contextual factors.
Instead, evidence suggests that these individuals were targeted not because of their religious or ethnic identities but due to their affiliations or roles within the AL. This distinction does not diminish the seriousness of the attacks but highlights the need for a nuanced understanding of the circumstances. Addressing such incidents requires focusing on both ensuring justice for the victims and avoiding sweeping generalisations that could exacerbate communal tensions or serve political agendas.
Most recently, the arrest of a former ISKCON leader, Chinmoy Krishna Das, has further intensified the situation. According to government spokesperson Asif Mahmud, Das was arrested on charges of sedition, not as a community or religious leader. However, Indian media once again framed this as an anti-minority action by the Bangladeshi government, fuelling tensions.
The situation escalated when protests erupted outside the Chattogram court premises, resulting in the tragic killing of a lawyer by supporters of the Hindu monk on November 26. While fears of nationwide unrest began to surface, the collective response from political parties, religious groups, and civil society showcased a remarkable sense of maturity and unity, successfully de-escalating tensions.
Despite this, Indian media persisted in its efforts to misrepresent the incidents, spreading misinformation and attempting to construct narratives detached from the realities on the ground. The repercussions of this disinformation campaign have already manifested in troubling ways. For instance, members of the Hindu Sangharsh Samity in Agartala attacked the Bangladesh Assistant High Commission in India’s Tripura, highlighting the real-world implications of such inflammatory reporting.
Additionally, growing tensions in border areas have disrupted the transfer of import-export goods, posing a direct threat to the economies of both nations. This situation underscores the urgent need for responsible reporting and diplomatic efforts to prevent misinformation from derailing bilateral relations and fuelling unnecessary conflict.
Whatever Indian media has been proposing or portraying is a pure reflection of illicit journalism, bringing no benefit to either country. Having a countering mechanism from Bangladesh to address this disinformation is imperative and requires a comprehensive approach involving the government, media houses, CSOs, student alliances, and political parties.
More importantly, India’s media needs to understand the new reality shaping Bangladesh as it moves forward. Failing to accept this reality or continuing efforts to destabilise the situation will not benefit even the minorities living in Bangladesh. Meanwhile, the reality of Indian Muslims remains far below expectations, a fact that Indian media often overlooks.
Mahtab Uddin Chowdhury is an independent researcher specialising in South Asian politics, local governance and media freedom.
