India Defends Minorities Abroad but Resists Similar Scrutiny at Home

New Delhi Asks Bangladesh to Protect Its Hindu Minority

Newsreel Asia Insight #306
August 10, 2024

This image is for representational purposes only.

Amid a wave of violent attacks on minority communities in Bangladesh, the Indian government has firmly urged the interim government there to protect its Hindu minority. Although this is a commendable stance, it reveals a clear contradiction in New Delhi’s foreign policy. While India has consistently rejected external critiques of its minority protections, it is now using similar diplomatic language to voice concerns in a neighbouring country.

The situation in Bangladesh has rapidly deteriorated amid recent protests and the sudden resignation and escape of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. Her departure sparked widespread unrest, with violent mobs specifically targeting minority communities, predominantly Hindus, who are widely viewed as supporters of the ousted Awami League government, but also Christians.

Within just 48 hours since Hasina’s ouster, about 400 properties owned by minorities were attacked across 30 of Bangladesh’s 64 districts, leading to at least two fatalities among the Hindu community, according to reports from the Bangladesh Hindu Buddhist Christian Unity Council. Further, there have been numerous reports of heinous crimes, including targeted killings, arson, looting and assaults on women.

High-ranking officials within the Indian government have rightly been proactive.

Home Minister Amit Shah announced the formation of a special committee, led by a senior Border Security Force officer, to monitor the situation and maintain communication with Bangladeshi authorities to ensure the safety of Indian nationals and Hindu minorities in Bangladesh.

Addressing parliament, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar reportedly said the government is committed to ensuring the safety of minorities in Bangladesh. 

The Hindu nationalist group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) expressed “serious concern” over the attacks, describing the violence against Hindus, Buddhists and other minorities as “intolerable.” RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale called for immediate action from both the Bangladeshi government and the international community to protect these vulnerable groups.

While both the public and the government of India are rightly concerned about the safety of minorities in Bangladesh, New Delhi’s diplomatic and security-focused response is especially striking when compared to its sensitivity towards international comments on its own internal issues, as explained in a previous Newsreel Asia Insight.

For example, India has reacted strongly to resolutions by the European Parliament and reports from the United States, including the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, that criticise its human rights record, especially regarding the treatment of Christian minorities and the ongoing unrest in Manipur.

The paradox in India’s foreign policy becomes evident here. The Indian government, which asserts non-interference in its domestic affairs as a sovereign right, is now actively engaging in the “internal” matters of Bangladesh by demanding protections for minority communities.

The situation closely resembles instances when the United States and other countries have urged India to better protect its Christian and Muslim populations—requests that India has often dismissed as unwarranted “foreign interference.”

The scenario calls for deeper reflections on the consistency of India’s diplomatic positions.

The principle of sovereignty traditionally grants a state the autonomy to govern itself without external interventions. However, global human rights norms, such as those outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework, advocate for the protection of fundamental human rights across national boundaries. These principles argue that when a state fails to protect its citizens, the international community has not just the right but the obligation to intervene.