Home

Featured Articles

Dec 23, 2025
Myind Staff

India-Bangladesh relations hit a new low: Protests intensify, visa services suspended

Relations between India and Bangladesh are now deeply strained following ongoing unrest and political tension in Bangladesh. What began as protests over the death of a youth leader has now spilt into diplomatic actions that affect people on both sides of the border. Tensions escalated sharply after the killing of Sharif Osman Hadi, and the situation has triggered strong reactions both within Bangladesh and internationally. The unrest has led to violence, diplomatic disagreements, and a wave of protests. The Bangladesh government has taken the rare step of suspending visa services for Indian nationals at several locations in India. India, in turn, expressed concerns about safety, minority rights, and security around diplomatic missions. In the midst of this diplomatic crisis, the United States called Bangladesh’s Chief Advisor, Muhammad Yunus, in an effort to discuss the deteriorating situation and the road ahead. The United States has expressed concern about the growing unrest in Bangladesh, especially its impact on regional stability and India-Bangladesh relations. In a notable diplomatic step, the US Special Envoy for South and Central Asia, Ambassador Sergio Gor, spoke with Bangladesh’s Chief Advisor Muhammad Yunus by phone. According to the US Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, the call lasted about half an hour. During this conversation, Yunus reiterated his government’s commitment to holding general elections on February 12, which he described as a way for the country to “reclaim voting rights allegedly denied under the previous regime.” The Bureau said the call also covered “recent events” in Bangladesh. In a post shared by the US Bureau on X (formerly Twitter), they wrote: “Today, Special Envoy for SCA Ambassador Sergio Gor held a productive call with Chief Advisor Yunus @ChiefAdviserGoB to discuss recent events in Bangladesh and shared US interests to advance prosperity through trade.” In response to massive protests near its diplomatic missions, the Bangladesh government temporarily suspended all consular and visa services in India. This includes visa operations at the Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi and at missions located in Tripura and Siliguri. This decision was taken “due to unavoidable circumstances,” according to official notices posted by Bangladesh missions. The suspensions came after protests were held outside these diplomatic offices, which raised concerns about safety and security. Bangladesh’s move followed a similar action by India, which had earlier suspended visa services at its mission in Chittagong, after protesters attempted to enter the compound. Chief Advisor Muhammad Yunus announced that despite the volatile situation, the interim Bangladeshi government remains committed to holding a “free, fair and peaceful” general election in about 50 days. Yunus said this election is essential for restoring democratic legitimacy after months of political instability. However, Yunus also warned that forces linked to the ousted Awami League government were trying to sabotage the electoral process. He claimed that supporters of the party, which lost power earlier this year, were spending millions in an attempt to disrupt the election and spread unrest. He also suggested that a fugitive leader was inciting violence from abroad. One of the protest organisations, Inqilab Moncho, led by the slain leader Sharif Osman Hadi, issued a strong statement in response to his death. The group gave the interim government a 24-hour ultimatum demanding justice for Hadi. Inqilab Moncho demanded a speedy trial tribunal, called for the involvement of international investigation agencies like the FBI and Scotland Yard, and held the home and law advisers responsible for failing to identify the culprits behind Hadi’s killing. Leaders of the group also accused intelligence agencies of incompetence and suggested that some individuals loyal to the former regime were still embedded in security forces. Tensions deepened after another key figure from the student-led uprising, Motaleb Shikder, was shot in the head in Khulna, a major city in Bangladesh. This incident occurred just days after Hadi’s killing. While police have started a manhunt, they have not yet identified suspects or motives. The attack has intensified concerns that political violence has spread and that those affiliated with the opposition are being targeted. With multiple leaders associated with last year’s protests now wounded or killed, many people are worried about whether the interim government can ensure safety and stability as the country approaches its elections. Amid the unrest in Bangladesh, India has also voiced serious concerns about the safety of minorities and diplomatic staff. The Indian government summoned Bangladesh’s envoy to express its worries. India pointed to rising extremist threats near diplomatic missions and growing violence against religious minorities in Bangladesh. New Delhi rejected claims that there had been major “security breaches” at the Bangladesh High Commission in Delhi, saying that protests in the area were “brief and controlled.” India also urged Bangladesh to ensure justice in the killing of Dipu Chandra Das, a young Hindu man who was lynched in Mymensingh, Bangladesh. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs said it was closely watching the situation to protect minority rights. As tensions continue, Bangladesh’s interim government suggested it might review or scale back its diplomatic presence in India. In response to media reports that described the protests outside the High Commission in Delhi, M. Touhid Hossain, Bangladesh’s Foreign Affairs Adviser, strongly rejected Indian media narratives about the protests. He said they presented a complex situation as if it were simple. He also stressed that Bangladesh would consider diplomatic options if conflicts persisted, indicating that bilateral ties might be affected further. Former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who has been living in exile in India, criticised Muhammad Yunus and his government for the unrest in Bangladesh. Hasina said the interim government had emboldened extremists, failed to protect minorities, and damaged ties with India. Hasina also accused radical groups of taking advantage of Yunus’s leadership to reshape Bangladesh’s foreign policy without democratic support. She suggested that relations with India would only improve once “legitimate governance” was restored in Bangladesh, signalling a clear political divide between the current interim leadership and the former Awami League government. Visuals from outside the Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi showed Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) activists clashing with security personnel. According to reports, protesters attempted to break through police barricades to reach the building. Security forces, including police and paramilitary personnel, had put in place multi-layered security arrangements to prevent any breach of the diplomatic premises. Despite these measures, protesters managed to push against barricades, leading to tense moments and scuffles. As the crowd surged forward, demonstrators raised slogans such as “Bharat Mata Ki Jai,” “Yunus Sarkar Hosh Mein Aao,” and “Hindu Hatiya Band Karo,” according to ANI. The situation was eventually brought under control by security forces, and no major breach of the High Commission compound was reported. The situation has created one of the most serious diplomatic strains in recent years between India and Bangladesh. Both domestic politics and public protests have influenced foreign policy decisions. The suspension of visa services interrupts travel and migration that involves students, workers, tourists, and families who cross the border regularly. The coming weeks will be crucial for how both countries manage these tensions, especially with Bangladesh’s general election scheduled for February 12 amid continued calls for justice from protest groups.

Dec 22, 2025
Vladimir Adityanaath

The Politics of Silence: Lynching of Dipu Chandra Das and Lessons for Hindu Society to Survive

Selective Silence, Elite Caution, and the Cost of Invisibility When mobs torched the offices of media houses like Prothom Alo and The Daily Star in Dhaka, after the death of Osman Hadi, foreign embassies moved quickly. Statements were issued. Joint condemnations followed. Press freedom was invoked, rightly, as a core democratic value1. But when Dipu Chandra Das, a Hindu factory worker, was lynched by an Islamist mob on fabricated allegations of blasphemy in the Bhaluka Upzila of Mymensingh District, the same diplomatic chorus fell conspicuously silent. The mortal remains of Dipu were hung from a tree and set on fire. This asymmetry is neither accidental nor is it mysterious. It reflects how modern diplomacy, international media, and political elites actually function. Why Embassies speak about media houses, but not Dipu Das Diplomatic statements are not moral judgments in isolation. Embassies speak when there is a narrative compatibility, institutional visibility and manageable risk. Attacks on media houses satisfy all three. They fit cleanly into the globally recognised frame of press freedom under threat. They involve institutions with international networks, editors who can amplify statements and NGOs that translate condemnation into sustained pressure. Most importantly, condemning attacks on journalists carries little diplomatic cost. A communal lynching of an individual, especially a Hindu in a Muslim-majority country, does not fit as neatly. It complicates narratives rather than reinforcing them. It raises questions about religious violence, social breakdown, and state capacity. Silence becomes the path of least resistance unless there is institutional pressure. Why Western media barely noticed Global media attention follows a similar structural logic. Newsworthiness is often decided by recognisability and geopolitical interests. Western media and international audiences instinctively identify with issues like Press Freedom and the security of Journalists. Dipu Das was an individual without an institutional voice. He did not belong to a profession with global solidarity networks. His death, however brutal, did not plug into a pre-existing media frame that editors could quickly deploy. In an age of short attention spans and narrative templates that often mean erasure, this is the silent cruelty of systems that privilege organised visibility over human depravity. They get away with it largely because Hindu society does not have a unified, organised international lobbying mechanism. Why India, too, remained publicly restrained India’s silence has a different logic, but it is no less troubling. Indian diplomacy operates under asymmetric vulnerability. A public statement condemning communal violence in Bangladesh risks becoming a spark in an already volatile environment, potentially worsening conditions for the very minority it seeks to protect. Historically, India has preferred quiet engagement, back-channel pressure, and avoidance of public moralising where it lacks direct enforcement leverage. Such a cautious and submissive approach carries a moral and strategic cost. Such a strategy remains viable because: 1) There is no political competition for Hindu votes. 2) Most of the Hindu ecosystem in India is still dependent on political patronage. 3) Elite detachment from civilisation: A significant part of India’s political class, across parties, does not view civilisational preservation as a core responsibility of governance. The modern Indian state inherited a colonial administrative mindset that treats cultural and civilisational issues as emotionally potent, politically inconvenient and best left unmanaged unless they threaten order. Many leaders, including those who personally identify as Hindu, operate on an unspoken assumption that the majority will adapt, absorb and endure. That belief breeds complacency. Cultural continuity becomes an expectation rather than a project, something that will somehow take care of itself while politics focuses on arithmetic, optics, and short-term stability. This is not always malice or cowardice. It is an incentive failure. Civilisational neglect carries little immediate political cost. Decisive cultural positioning, by contrast, carries domestic and international risk. The result is a political elite more comfortable managing power than articulating meaning, more fluent in constitutional process than in civilisational responsibility. What this episode really reveals The tragedy of Dipu Chandra Das exposes an uncomfortable truth: in the contemporary world, visibility for human rights is mediated through institutions. Those without organisational backing, international advocacy networks, or narrative utility are easily ignored even when the crime against them is extreme. Moral gravity alone does not guarantee attention. Communities that assume moral expectation will substitute for institutional presence pay a disproportionate price. What Hindu society must internalise If there is a lesson here, it is not about outrage. It is about capacity. Survival (cultural, political, or civilisational) and expansion depends less on numbers or historical grievance than on institutional competence. That means: · Documentation before denunciation: facts, timelines, evidence, archives. · Institutions over impulses: legal aid funds, research bodies, media monitoring groups. · Narrative discipline: precise language that withstands scrutiny and cannot be dismissed as rhetoric. · International literacy: understanding how global advocacy works, · Economic and professional networks capable of sustaining long campaigns, not just moments of attention. · Community Manifestos at regional, national and international levels None of this is dramatic. None of it trends easily. But that is how communities avoid invisibility. A closing thought The silence surrounding Dipu Chandra Das is not a verdict on the value of his life. It is a mirror held up to how power listens and how often it does not. Civilisations do not survive because elites suddenly discover courage. They survive when societies make neglect expensive, when silence carries consequences and when cultural continuity is treated not as an inheritance, but as a responsibility. History suggests that only one of these paths endures. References 1) https://www.thedailystar.net/news/bangladesh/diplomacy/news/un-intl-rights-groups-condemn-attack-media-4062211

Canada’s Terror Footprints: Preventing Pakistanisation of Canada’s Civic Polity

In the Melody of Telugu

India, Bangladesh, and the Hindu Minority Crisis: A Strategic, Legal, and Civilisational Assessment Under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Doctrine

Featured Articles

India-Bangladesh relations hit a new low: Protests intensify, visa services suspended

The Politics of Silence: Lynching of Dipu Chandra Das and Lessons for Hindu Society to Survive

Reports View All

Madras High Court rules Bhagavad Gita is not a religious text to deny FCRA registration to trust

Pakistan and Libya finalise over $4 billion military equipment deal despite UN arms embargo

China has loaded over 100 ICBMs in silo fields bordering Mongolia: Pentagon report

US expresses willingness to join India’s nuclear energy sector after liability law change

India announces $450 million reconstruction support for cyclone-hit Sri Lanka

Japan issues strong warning on Yen, signals readiness to intervene

Search

Top Authors

Archives

Featured Articles

Reports View All

Search

Podcast / Videos

Popular Posts

Top Authors

Archives