Last night’s week-end debate on CNN News involving three of its editors—Rahul Shiv Shankar, Anand Narasimhan, and Jacob Zakka—delved into the complexities surrounding the safety of Hindu minorities in Bangladesh amid recent unrest. The conversation, which exposed differing viewpoints, also underscored the broader discourse on religious persecution, regional politics, and media narratives. In this context, the role of converts and their potential impact on societal and political dynamics becomes a subject worth exploring.
Recent unrest in Bangladesh has intensified concerns over the safety of its Hindu minority. The country’s Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, allegedly had to flee to India with the assistance of the Bangladeshi army, highlighting the volatile situation. The debate becomes more complex with the introduction of Muhammad Yunus, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, as an advisor to an all-party committee that reportedly includes factions with extremist ideologies. This appointment raises questions about external influences in Bangladesh’s political landscape, particularly from the United States, which some claim has foisted Yunus as a “stooge.”
During the CNN debate, Jacob Zakka took a stance that sparked controversy. He questioned why India should concern itself with the persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh, suggesting that it is an internal matter for Bangladesh. His viewpoint further extended to argue that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi should refrain from involving India in such matters. However, his position seemed paradoxical when juxtaposed with the narrative promoted by some Indian opposition parties, who claim that Muslims feel insecure in India. This duality in argumentation, where concern is shown for the perceived insecurity of Indian Muslims but dismissed for persecuted Hindus in neighbouring countries, raises critical questions about consistency and bias.
Zakka’s assertion that “Indian Muslims are different from Pakistani Muslims” further muddles the debate. His argument seems to disregard the intertwined historical and socio-cultural realities of the subcontinent. The example of Kashmir and Hyderabad is often cited to illustrate how religious and political affiliations have led to conflicts and mass migrations, influencing the demographics and social fabric of India.
To understand the current dynamics, it is crucial to revisit the period of Partition in 1947 when the Indian subcontinent was divided into India and Pakistan. At the time of Partition, Hindus and Sikhs constituted about 18% of Pakistan’s population. Over the years, this number has dwindled to a mere 2%, a consequence of forced conversions, targeted violence, and state policies. Similarly, in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), Hindus comprised about 17% of the population. Following the brutalities of the 1971 Liberation War and subsequent societal changes, this number has been significantly reduced.
The historical narrative does not end there. Afghanistan, too, once had a vibrant Hindu and Sikh population that has been nearly erased due to prolonged conflict, religious persecution, and systemic discrimination. These historical precedents highlight a troubling pattern of religious persecution against Hindus in the region, a reality that cannot be ignored in contemporary discussions about religious freedoms and minority rights.
India, as a predominantly Hindu-majority nation surrounded by Islamic republics, has adopted policies to protect persecuted minorities in its neighborhood. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was introduced to provide refuge to persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, recognizing that these communities face existential threats in these countries. However, critics like Zakka, and other liberal voices, often portray such policies as discriminatory without fully acknowledging the reasons for their existence.
Zakka went further by questioning how India could accommodate 13 million Hindus from Bangladesh if they chose to migrate to India. This stance seems to overlook the dire circumstances faced by these minorities. Does he suggest that the remaining 13 million Hindus in Bangladesh should also be reduced to a mere fraction through continued persecution, attacks, and destruction of their religious sites? By advising the Indian government to “look the other way,” is he implying that India should ignore the suffering of its ethnic kin?
The debate also brings into focus the issue of religious converts and their perceived loyalties. There is a sentiment that some converts, particularly those who embrace ideologies antagonistic to their country of origin, might pose a risk by amplifying divisive narratives. This concern is not about questioning an individual’s right to choose their faith but about understanding the potential influence of converts who might adopt extreme stances against their own heritage and former co-religionists.
While Zakka’s stance may be contentious, it is important to balance the debate with facts. While advocating for minority rights and freedom of expression, it is equally vital to recognize the historical and ongoing persecution of Hindus and other minorities in the region. The complex interplay of regional politics, media narratives, and historical injustices requires a nuanced understanding.
Journalists like Zakka have a responsibility to approach such sensitive topics with maturity and balance. India, as a nation, has a legitimate concern for the safety and well-being of Hindus and other minorities, both within its borders and in its neighborhood. At the same time, ensuring that the discourse does not slip into xenophobia or communalism is crucial for maintaining India’s pluralistic values.
In conclusion, the debate on how dangerous some converts can be, especially when they align with extremist narratives, must be approached carefully. It is essential to address genuine concerns about religious persecution without demonizing entire communities or individuals. India, with its rich history and diversity, must navigate these waters thoughtfully, ensuring both justice for the persecuted and harmony within its own society.
