* Minhaj Aman, Researcher Bangladesh
As the clock struck 3:30 PM, Alim Mia, a man in his fifties, prostrated on the ground in front of the Prime Minister’s Office in Dhaka. Rising from his prayer, he raised both hands to the sky, weeping uncontrollably with tears of joy following the resignation of Sheikh Hasina, according to BBC Bangla. On August 5, Sheikh Hasina stepped down as Prime Minister and left the country following the mass student uprising. The revolution, which began over quota reforms, led to the deaths of over 1,000 people, including children, youths, and women. Thousands more were injured as law enforcement forces brutally suppressed the movement. Like all other governments of the world, Narendra Modi greeted Dr Yunus and expressed hope for a return to normalcy in Bangladesh, and particularly called for the safety of minority communities in the country.
India is Bangladesh’s largest neighbor, and since its birth, Bangladesh has shared a unique love-hate relationship with India. However, over the past 16 years, especially after the 2008 elections, there has been growing turmoil in the relationship between the two countries. India has gradually reduced its diplomatic ties with Bangladesh to a party-centric relationship. I do not believe it is fair to entirely blame India for this unilateral stance. After all, there is no such thing as a “friendly state”; every nation acts in its own self-interest. However, the then-fascist regime of Bangladesh, led by Sheikh Hasina, lacked any real representation of the people.
In 2008, Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League came to power through a somewhat neutral election, though some have raised concerns about the military’s involvement. Her government subsequently dismantled the universally agreed-upon caretaker system, which had allowed for neutral oversight of elections and the peaceful transfer of power. This has deeply compromised Bangladesh’s electoral process, creating widespread distrust among the opposition.
Since then, three national elections under Sheikh Hasina’s regime have been marred by serious allegations of irregularities and a lack of genuine public representation. As a result, India has taken advantage of the situation, pursuing its interests under a government that does not represent the Bangladeshi people. One of India’s key foreign policy strategies in Bangladesh has been focusing on the country’s minority communities, particularly Hindus. India has shown more concern for the minorities in Bangladesh than for its own, as if this has become an official policy.
In this context, when Bangladesh’s student movement toppled Hasina’s government, forcing her to flee and leaving the Ganabhaban and Parliament under the control of the masses, many alarming actions by Indian media and social media platforms caught the attention of Bangladeshis.
It is an open secret that a significant portion of Bangladesh’s Hindu community supports the Awami League, which claims to be a center-left secular party under Sheikh Hasina’s leadership. Many individuals from this community held key positions in both the government and ruling party during Hasina’s rule. As a result, when angry protesters and opposition members attacked the homes and offices of Awami League leaders, Indian social media platforms, especially Twitter and Facebook, saw a surge in posts primarily from India, falsely claiming that Bangladesh was under Islamist rule and that minorities, particularly Hindus, were at risk.
Some Indian voices even called on their government to intervene in Bangladesh. These posts often contained manipulated content, such as misrepresenting non-communal incidents as sectarian, portraying attacks on Muslim-owned properties as those of Hindus, and sharing unrelated or outdated footage as evidence of current events. A fact-checking agency in Bangladesh identified at least 50 Twitter accounts that have consistently spread disinformation against Bangladesh, with 72% of those accounts based in India. International media outlets like CNN, BBC, and Voice of America also covered many of these fabricated claims.
However, it cannot be denied that there were indeed some attacks on minority communities. According to an investigation by Prothom Alo, a leading Bangladeshi newspaper, attacks occurred at 1,068 sites belonging to minority communities, with at least 506 of them linked to individuals with ties to the Awami League. In contrast, only 22 Hindu temples were attacked, a small number considering the estimated 40,000 temples across the country. Prothom Alo’s report has one significant limitation: their reporters only verified 51% of the incidents on the ground, while the rest were based on secondhand information.
The issue of recent floods with different claims is equally complex. Water disputes between Bangladesh and India are not new. There are 54 transboundary rivers shared between the two countries, yet despite 50 years of the Joint River Commission, the problem of water distribution remains unsolved. Beginning on August 20, floods inundated large parts of 11 districts, including Feni, Noakhali, Comilla, Chittagong, and Sylhet. According to Oxfam, over 500,000 people were displaced, and approximately 5.8 million were directly affected. It was later revealed that the release of water from the Dumbur Dam in Tripura into the Gomti River caused the sudden surge of water that flooded the Daudkandi region in Bangladesh. New Delhi has since claimed that the floods were caused not by the release of water from the dam, but by heavy rainfall in Indian areas downstream of the dam. However, it was later confirmed that India had failed to provide prior notice of the release.
Mohammad Ejaz, the chairman of the River and Delta Research Centre (RDRC), told Prothom Alo that proper information from India about the incoming water flow is crucial for Bangladesh, as is maintaining a clear path for the water to drain. He noted that the Joint River Commission and Bangladesh’s River Protection Commission could have played critical roles, but these institutions have been rendered ineffective. Another water expert, Dr. Ainun Nishat, an emeritus professor at BRAC University, agreed, saying, “Whenever we approach politicians for policy decisions on these issues, they stall. Political decisions are needed from both countries.”
The revolution in Bangladesh led to widespread support for Nobel Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus, who was seen as a symbol of democratic hope for the people. No faction or group involved in the revolution has expressed any dissent regarding his assumption of power. Yet, misinformation campaigns from abroad continue to claim that Yunus will not be able to address the United Nations. Reports falsely allege that Russia and China have boycotted him, although the Russian Embassy in Bangladesh has since dismissed these rumors.
Indian media also circulated claims that Sheikh Hasina wrote a letter accusing the U.S. of orchestrating her removal from power, linking Yunus to pro-American interests. Though the letter was eventually proven fake by the statement of her son Sajeeb Joy and removed from many platforms as well, but the damage was already done. Further, rumors persist that Yunus is collaborating with radical Islamists and that he plans to establish an American military base on Saint Martin’s Island in collaboration with the U.S. Additionally, there are conspiracy theories claiming that foreign intelligence groups worked against Hasina’s government. These narratives, which serve to undermine the will of the Bangladeshi people, remain still unsubstantiated.
The ongoing disinformation campaign also carries an undertone of Islamophobia. The assumption that all Muslim-majority governments are inherently radical or Sharia-based and that minorities in these countries are second-class citizens is being pushed once again, this time against Bangladesh. I believe that the Turkish government could play a significant role here, helping to uphold democracy, human rights, and the right to truthful information in Bangladesh.
