Silence of Islamic countries on the persecution and targeted killings of Hindus in Bangladesh

 The growing violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, including targeted killings, attacks on homes and temples, and forced displacement, has raised concern in many quarters. Yet what stands out even more sharply than the violence itself is the near-complete silence of Islamic countries that otherwise speak loudly and frequently on minority rights—especially when the subject is Muslims in India.

Countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia regularly issue statements, pass resolutions, and mobilise international opinion over incidents involving Muslims in India, even when those incidents are localised or still under investigation. However, when Hindus in Bangladesh face sustained intimidation and killings, or when minorities in Pakistan live under constant fear of blasphemy laws and mob violence, these same governments have little to say. This silence is not accidental. It reflects a clear double standard, where concern for minorities is guided not by principle, but by religious identity.

The contrast between the situation of Muslims in India and Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan is striking. In India, despite social tensions and political polarisation, Muslims have constitutional protections, political representation, an independent judiciary, and a free press where grievances can be aired. In Bangladesh and Pakistan, Hindus are shrinking minorities, often without effective institutional protection, and are frequently targeted during political instability or religious mobilisation. Yet global outrage is directed almost entirely in one direction.

This selective concern is echoed within India itself. Large sections of the Indian Left and liberal intelligentsia, who are quick to protest injustice against minorities at home, have been notably restrained in speaking about the persecution of Hindus in neighbouring countries. The reasons offered vary—geopolitics, fear of aiding domestic political rivals, or concerns about majoritarian misuse. But the outcome is the same: a moral silence that weakens their claim to universal human rights.

Criticising this hypocrisy does not mean denying or minimising the problems faced by minorities in India. Those issues deserve attention and correction. But consistency matters. Human rights cannot depend on the religion of the victim or the location of the injustice. When concern stops at borders or shifts with ideology, it ceases to be a moral position and becomes a political tool.

The message from this situation is clear. Islamic countries that claim to champion minority rights must explain why those principles do not apply within Muslim-majority societies. And India’s Left must reflect on why its voice falters when Hindus are the victims. Selective outrage erodes credibility, and silence in the face of targeted persecution ultimately speaks louder than any statement ever could.