Analysis, Minority Rights, Opinion

Political vs. Religious Motives: Uncovering the Truth Behind Targeted Violence

Robi Das

Current Yunus government is continuously denying the claims of the Bangladesh Hindu Buddhist Christian Unity Council (BHBCUC) saying that the killings reported by the organisation are political in nature. The government did not find that those persons were killed due to their religious identity. However, while making this claim the government ignored the victim perspective, and the motive behind selecting the victim.

The Bangladesh Hindu Buddhist Christian Unity Council (BHBCUC), a civil society organisation representing religious and ethnic minorities in Bangladesh, claimed in a press conference on 30 January 2025 that between 21 August and 31 December, 174 incidents of violence against religious minorities occurred in the country. Among these incidents, the organisation reported 23 killings. Soon after, the current Yunus government responded, alleging that BHBCUC was spreading rumours and misinformation, asserting that none of these individuals were killed because of their religious identity but rather due to political rivalry, land disputes, or as victims of general crimes. Sadly, of all possible approaches, that was the government’s first response to the BHBCUC report, without even looking into the claims or investigating them. Such sweeping claims from the current government are not new as we have witnessed numerous times since they took power in August last year. It appears that the government has adopted a ‘deny and discredit first’ policy against any claims

of human rights violations. This is very concerning. Previously, in December, the current Press Secretary (better termed as ‘spokesperson’) made the same assertion as above. Worryingly, such government responses are enabling certain commentators, such as 2 Cents Podcasts, to spread hatred against the Hindu populace of Bangladesh by labelling them as Indian sympathisers or agents. However, this article is not about any specific kinds of activism but rather about the broader question: How does a crime become classified as a political crime or a religion-based crime? The Yunus government has consistently argued, since 8 August 2024, that most crimes committed against religious and ethnic minorities are politically motivated killings—as if killing someone for political reasons is somehow justifiable. Political crimes and crimes committed against individuals due to their religious identity are indeed distinct in their motivations and objectives, though they often overlap. When comparing a person targeted for their political beliefs to one targeted for their religious beliefs, the key…

Journalism, Politics, Review

Investigating Al Jazeera’s ‘investigation’: an open letter to David Bergman

Rayhan Rashid

Every country, not just Bangladesh, needs a space for introspection on certain fundamental matters. These are, for example, power (and its abuse), influence (and its peddling), civil liberties (and its suppression), privacy (and surveillance), probity, integrity, transparency etc. While conscientious journalism serves as a catalyst for advancement, careless ones hinder it, as the latter kind diverts the very agenda of discourse that the media is supposed to engender.

In a Facebook post (Feb 4), my brief take on the much talked about Al Jazeera documentary ("All the Prime Minister's Men") was: "It is something that could have been part of an important conversation, but merely ended up being a cheap sensationalisation of some majorly unsubstantiated claims based on heaps of unrelated information, false insinuations, and deliberately omitted contexts." (Link) You wrote to me, asking what I meant by that. Since this relates to a matter that is now subject of public debate, I thought it would make sense to respond in a public thread. I hope you would not object to such a public nature of engagement. First of all, thank you for your willingness to discuss the AJ piece. I hope this will shed some light on some of the whats, whys, and hows of the documentary that many like me are curious about. I have noted your assessment of the documentary in an interview (Link) where

you attested the claims made in the programme as "well substantiated." So, I decided to watch the documentary for a second time just to be sure that we are referring to the same work, and found myself in agreement with you regarding its "sleek production quality" at least. It indeed gives the feel of watching a "thriller", as you rightly described. With regard to its content, however, I wish I could share your glowing verdict. Regrettably, the artistic liberty the makers took so abundantly in its treatment of "facts/evidence", did not quite make up for the journalistic rigour which the documentary generally lacked. Before elaborating why I found this documentary unsubstantiated, let me make a few things clear. I believe, every country, not just Bangladesh, needs a space for introspection on certain fundamental matters. These are, for example, power (and its abuse), influence (and its peddling), civil liberties (and its suppression), privacy (and surveillance), probity, integrity, transparency etc. While conscientious…

  • Sign up
Password Strength Very Weak
Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.
We do not share your personal details with anyone.