India slams Bangladesh for ‘unwarranted’ remarks, says protect your own minorities first

Why did India respond strongly to Bangladesh’s statement on West Bengal violence?

India issued a firm diplomatic rebuttal to Bangladesh’s recent comments on the communal unrest in West Bengal‘s Murshidabad district, asserting that Dhaka should concentrate on protecting its own minority populations instead of interfering in India’s internal affairs. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) described Bangladesh’s concerns as “disingenuous” and said they distracted from the real challenges minority communities face within Bangladesh.

The backlash came after the interim government in Dhaka, headed by Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus, expressed unease over reports of violence targeting Muslims in Murshidabad during protests linked to the controversial Waqf (Amendment) Act. Bangladesh’s press secretary called upon Indian authorities to ensure the protection and welfare of Muslim citizens in areas affected by the violence. This move prompted a strong response from New Delhi, which characterised the remarks as an unjustified intrusion into India’s domestic issues.

What triggered the diplomatic dispute between India and Bangladesh?

At the core of this exchange is the recent unrest in West Bengal’s Murshidabad district, where three people were reportedly killed and dozens injured amid protests against the Waqf (Amendment) Act. The demonstrations, which spiralled into violent clashes, were sparked by dissatisfaction over perceived government overreach in regulating Waqf properties—religious endowments contributed by Muslim communities.

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, which expands central oversight over the administration of Waqf properties, has come under criticism for allegedly undermining the autonomy of local Waqf boards. Legal petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Act are currently pending before the Supreme Court of India. In a temporary relief to petitioners, the Indian government recently informed the apex court that no fresh appointments to Waqf Boards or Councils will be made until further notice.

Bangladesh’s reaction, while framed as a call for religious harmony, was interpreted by Indian authorities as an unnecessary external commentary on what they consider an internal administrative and legal matter.

What are the deeper political and historical undercurrents in India-Bangladesh ties?

The diplomatic skirmish over minority rights and communal unrest touches upon a long-standing sensitivity in India-Bangladesh relations—namely, the treatment and political representation of minority communities in both countries. While India maintains a constitutional framework that guarantees religious freedom and protection to minorities, allegations of sporadic communal incidents have long drawn scrutiny from international observers and neighbouring states.

Conversely, India has repeatedly flagged its concern over the shrinking Hindu population in Bangladesh and reported instances of religious violence, vandalism of temples, and the forced displacement of Hindu families in districts like Cumilla and Noakhali. In multiple bilateral dialogues over the past two decades, New Delhi has raised these issues while stressing the need for stronger protections and enforcement of minority rights under Bangladesh’s domestic laws.

By invoking this historical context, India’s recent response appears to be an attempt to redirect global attention toward what it sees as a pattern of minority suppression in Bangladesh, especially in the wake of political unrest and ongoing transitions within Dhaka’s interim government.

What is the status of minority protection in Bangladesh, and why does India call it a concern?

India’s statement that Bangladesh should “focus on protecting its own minorities” reflects broader international concerns about the condition of Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian communities in Bangladesh. Reports from human rights organisations and civil society groups have frequently highlighted instances of religiously motivated violence, land grabs targeting minority-owned properties, and low conviction rates for perpetrators of such crimes.

Although Bangladesh’s constitution guarantees equal rights for all citizens regardless of faith, critics have long argued that minority rights enforcement remains inconsistent, especially in rural and politically polarised regions. Indian officials noted that many of the perpetrators involved in attacks on Hindu temples and homes in recent years continue to remain at large, underscoring what they allege is systemic impunity and institutional apathy.

This latest exchange reopens long-standing wounds related to the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, during which millions of refugees—mainly from minority communities—fled to India to escape persecution and conflict. These historical grievances continue to inform public and political narratives in both countries.

How does the Waqf (Amendment) Act fit into this geopolitical tension?

The Waqf (Amendment) Act, though largely a domestic legislative measure, has taken on broader significance in the diplomatic fallout. Originally framed as a move to improve accountability and curb misuse of religious land assets, the Act has sparked concern among sections of India’s Muslim community, who see it as a curtailment of religious autonomy.

Legal experts argue that the Act’s provisions increase the central government’s power to intervene in the management of Waqf estates, which are often run by community-appointed trustees. Detractors claim that this could lead to politicisation of religious assets and reduce local community control. With petitions pending before India’s highest court, the matter remains legally and politically sensitive.

By commenting on protests against this law, Bangladesh’s interim administration appeared to take a position on an issue under judicial review—something India’s Ministry of External Affairs saw as diplomatically inappropriate.

What does this incident reveal about India’s evolving foreign policy posture?

India’s strong response to Bangladesh may also reflect a broader foreign policy recalibration in the South Asian neighbourhood. Under the current administration, New Delhi has increasingly adopted a doctrine of reciprocal diplomacy, especially when it perceives external criticism as ideologically motivated or selectively applied.

Officials within the MEA stated that India, as a sovereign democracy, welcomes legitimate international engagement but expects neighbouring governments to exercise restraint when commenting on internal matters, particularly those that involve judicial scrutiny and constitutional rights.

This incident follows a string of diplomatic flare-ups involving external commentary on India’s domestic policies, including previous tensions with Canada, the UK, and the US over issues such as religious freedom, protests, and legislative reforms.

How might this affect India-Bangladesh relations in the near term?

While both governments are likely to avoid a prolonged escalation, the current episode could temporarily disrupt bilateral dialogues focused on trade, border security, and water sharing. India and Bangladesh are currently engaged in several high-level consultations, and a joint statement from both sides is expected in the coming weeks following meetings between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Bangladeshi Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus.

Despite the friction, both nations share substantial strategic and economic ties, including energy cooperation, regional connectivity projects, and security coordination along their 4,096-kilometre border—the fifth-longest international land boundary in the world.

Analysts suggest that while rhetoric may flare occasionally, the pragmatic imperatives of cooperation on trade, migration, and counter-terrorism are likely to anchor the relationship in the long term. However, both countries will have to navigate the delicate balance between asserting sovereignty and respecting diplomatic decorum in addressing each other’s internal matters.