The arrest of a prominent Hindu monk in Bangladesh has sparked a diplomatic tussle with India, highlighting a recurring point of contention in the bilateral relationship: the condition of minorities in Bangladesh. This latest episode not only puts the spotlight on the treatment of minorities but also raises broader questions about governance, social harmony, and the delicate balance between justice and communal sensitivities. Bangladesh’s Hindu minority, comprising around 8 per cent of the population, has historically been a barometer of the country’s commitment to pluralism.

The arrest of Chinmoy Krishna Das, a vocal advocate for minority rights, and the ensuing violence underscore a precarious environment where tensions can easily escalate. While Bangladesh’s interim government claims the arrest is justified on charges of sedition, the perception of targeting a prominent Hindu figure risks stoking communal insecurities. The reaction from India, expressing concern for the safety of minorities, has added a diplomatic layer to the incident. Relations between the two nations, which were robust under former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, have grown tense since her ouster. Sheikh Hasina’s exile in India complicates matters further, with her presence serving as both a symbol of unresolved political turbulence in Bangladesh and a diplomatic tight-rope for India. The violence following Mr Das’s arrest, resulting in the death of a Muslim lawyer, highlights the volatility of communal tensions.

Such incidents reveal the thin line between maintaining law and order and preserving social cohesion. The interim government, under Muhammad Yunus, faces the dual challenge of asserting its authority while ensuring that justice is seen as impartial and inclusive. Mr Yunus’s calls for calm are timely, but the perception of bias, whether real or imagined, could undermine these efforts. From a governance perspective, the incident exposes the fragility of Bangladesh’s sociopolitical fabric. The nation’s progress on economic and developmental fronts is already being overshadowed by recurring communal flashpoints. These challenges are exacerbated by the current political vacuum and uncertainty surrounding elections. Without a credible electoral process, Bangladesh risks further polarising its population, complicating efforts to foster unity.

For India, the issue of minority rights in Bangladesh is as much about domestic optics as it is about foreign policy. Raising concerns serves to reassure its own population of its commitment to Hindus abroad while subtly pressuring Dhaka to act responsibly. However, such interventions risk being perceived as interference, potentially straining bilateral ties further. Ultimately, Bangladesh’s long-term stability hinges on its ability to uphold the principles of justice and communal harmony.

Arrests, protests, and diplomatic exchanges must not be allowed to erode progress made in fostering social cohesion. The interim government must prioritise inclusivity and transparency, ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their faith, feel protected. In navigating these challenges, Bangladesh can reaffirm its commitment to being a diverse and harmonious society, a goal essential for both its internal stability and international relationships. At the moment, though, Dhaka seems to be floundering.