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 differences lie in the perpetrators’ motivations and the nature of the beliefs being targeted. Below is a breakdown of their differences:

Being Targeted for Political Beliefs

• Motivation of Perpetrators: The attackers are often driven by opposing political ideologies or a desire to suppress dissent. They may view the victim’s political stance as a threat to their own power or agenda.
• Nature of Beliefs: Political beliefs typically relate to governance, policies, and the organisation of society. These beliefs may concern democracy, socialism, capitalism, or other political ideologies.
• Examples of Targeting: This can include harassment, imprisonment, or violence against political activists, journalists, or politicians. For instance, a journalist critical of a government may be targeted to silence their reporting.
• Impact: The consequences can be widespread, affecting political discourse, freedom of speech, and the democratic process.

Being Targeted for Religious Beliefs

• Motivation of Perpetrators: The attackers are motivated by religious intolerance, zealotry, or a desire to impose their own religious beliefs. They may see the victim’s faith as heretical or threatening to their religious dominance.
• Nature of Beliefs: Religious beliefs relate to faith, spirituality, and the worship of a higher power. These encompass a wide range of practices, rituals, and moral codes.
• Examples of Targeting: This can include hate crimes, discrimination, or violence against individuals because of their religious attire, practices, or places of worship. For example, a person wearing religious symbols might be attacked by those who oppose their faith.
• Impact: The impact can lead to increased religious tension, discrimination, and a breakdown in social cohesion.

What is common?

• Human Rights Violations: Both scenarios involve violations of fundamental human rights, such as freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
• Psychological and Social Impact: Both types of targeting can lead to fear, trauma, and a sense of insecurity among the affected communities.

In essence, determining whether a crime is politically motivated or driven by the victim’s religious identity hinges on the perpetrators’ motivations and intentions. To establish this, police investigations must delve into the perpetrators’ mindsets and ascertain the motives, a process that is fundamental to any investigative or prosecutorial process. The pressing question is whether the current Bangladeshi government has made any effort to ascertain these motivations and intentions. Have they investigated why a perpetrator would target a religious minority individual in an area where other Muslims support the same political party?

Take, for example, the case of Lipika Gomez, a Christian woman who was killed on the night of 11 September 2024 in her home on Hrishikesh Das Road, Sutrapur, Dhaka. Two suspects have been arrested. Why was she targeted? Was she the wealthiest person in the area? No, she was not. Criminologists would argue that she was targeted because she was a woman, she was single, and she was Christian. It is well known in Bangladesh that when a crime victim comes from a minority background, police and investigative authorities often move slowly to identify the perpetrators. Thus, her religious identity played a crucial role in her being targeted. The same argument applies to the killing of Rani, a 50-year-old Adivasi woman living alone in Rajshahi. Each incident can be examined in this way, revealing that the victim’s religious identity was a significant factor in their targeting.

This raises further questions: Why does the government support the perpetrators by claiming the victim was not targeted because of her religion? Why does the government perceive itself as an adversary of religious minorities if this motivation is acknowledged as a factor in the crime? These concerns highlight the fact that the present government has failed to respect the victims’ perspectives on why they were targeted. Shafiqul Alam, the current government spokesperson, often claims that critics do not read relevant information before criticising the actions of the Yunus government. I urge policymakers to read the works of sociologists and criminologists such as Sophie Litvak, Janne Kivivuori, Markus Kaakinen, and Amy Adamczyk, who have highlighted in their research that understanding the experiences and perceptions of victims is crucial in assessing the prevalence and impact of religiously motivated crimes. Even ICTY cases, such as Tadić and Vlastimir Đorđević, prescribe that in order to determine why a victim was targeted, courts or investigative authorities must consider the victim’s perspective. Furthermore, the government has failed to adhere to the Toonen standard prescribed by the UN Human Rights Committee. At the very least, they could have considered the opinion of the US Government Accountability Office, which recommends listening to the victim first in such cases. In short, the government should have taken the victims’ perspectives into account through proper police investigation, court findings, or the National Human Rights Commission before hastily dismissing the claims of BHBCUC.

Conclusion

The consequences of such persistent denials by the government are far-reaching. They not only embolden perpetrators but also deepen mistrust between religious minorities and state institutions, exacerbating social divisions and insecurity. The refusal to acknowledge the religious dimensions of these crimes risks legitimising violence and discrimination, further eroding human rights and justice in Bangladesh. To rectify this, the government must adopt a victim-centred approach, ensuring thorough, impartial investigations that consider both political and religious motivations. Additionally, fostering open dialogue, strengthening legal protections, and holding perpetrators accountable are essential steps towards upholding the rule of law and safeguarding minority rights. Only by recognising and addressing these concerns can Bangladesh move towards a more inclusive and just society.