India criticized a UN report on Bangladesh for allegedly endorsing revenge violence against minorities. The report pointed to serious human rights violations by political leaders during unrest. India’s representative emphasized the need for genuine reconciliation. The UN findings indicated varied motivations for violence against minorities in Bangladesh amidst a political vacuum following Sheikh Hasina’s ouster.
On March 5, during a United Nations Human Rights Council session in Geneva, India criticized a UN fact-finding report concerning Bangladesh, labeling it as having “mainstreamed” the idea of “revenge violence against minorities.” This occurred while India’s External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar engaged with his UK counterpart in discussions related to South Asia. UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk presented the fact-finding report, which addressed violence amid student protests in Bangladesh and hailed it as vital for accountability and reconciliation.
The report implicated former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and other senior leaders in significant human rights violations during the disturbances. Although India had not previously reacted to the report, the Indian representative, Anupama Singh, expressed concern regarding its portrayal of violence against minorities without addressing the allegations against Hasina directly. She criticized the report’s framing of revenge violence, describing it as troubling and flawed, asserting that it unfairly legitimizes violence against minorities.
Additionally, Singh addressed the concept of “mobocracy,” indicating that it promotes a dangerous logic surrounding violence. Emphasizing the need for genuine reconciliation processes in society, she affirmed that mere superficial remedies would not yield sustainable results, and that true reconciliation must be organically fostered within the nation.
The UN report indicated a “broad pattern of violence” against minorities following Hasina’s departure from power, citing various motivations driving such acts, including religious, ethnic, and political animosities. It acknowledged challenges in accurately gauging the extent of violence, particularly since reports from advocacy organizations often contradicted accounts from journalists.
The report underscored a power vacuum leading to increased risks for vulnerable groups, particularly Hindus, indigenous populations in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, and Ahmadiyya Muslims. However, it clarified that motivations behind attacks went beyond mere communalism, driven by diverse factors such as inter-communal disputes and revenge against Awami League supporters.
While Jaishankar engaged in discussions covering regional issues, including Bangladesh, UK Foreign Minister David Lammy indicated the necessity for a thorough and independent investigation into recent events in Bangladesh following Hasina’s ouster. This wave of instability has sparked dialogue on the potential for fostering a stable and democratic future for Bangladesh.
In summary, India has formally voiced its opposition to a UN report on Bangladesh that seemingly endorses the idea of revenge violence against minorities. Concerns were raised about the implications of such a framing, especially in relation to political accountability and societal reconciliation. The report itself reveals a complex landscape of violence rooted in various biases amid a changing political climate in Bangladesh, highlighting the ongoing challenges in achieving peace and stability in the region.
Original Source: m.thewire.in
