Manufacturing Victimhood

After the dethroning of Sheikh Hasina Wajid, the people of Bangladesh pushed for greater autonomy and sought to distance themselves from India’s direct influence. In response, groups in the United States associated with Hindutva began alleging that the Muhammad Yunus-led government had been oppressing Hindus and presiding over a “genocide.” However, critics argue that this claim is not supported by available evidence and appears to serve political interests rather than reflect ground realities.

Transnational disinformation often uses victimhood rhetoric. In recent years, organizations such as the Coalition of Hindus of North America, the Hindu American Foundation, Voice of Hindus, Stop Hindudvesha, the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America, and the Overseas Friends of the Bharatiya Janata Party—aligned with the Hindutva movement—have lobbied to advance this narrative. These efforts seem more focused on leveraging identity politics to advance India’s broader strategic objectives than on protecting minority rights.

By depicting Bangladesh as a Centre of Hindu persecution, these organizations seek to influence U.S. policymakers, draw attention away from India’s increasingly majoritarian politics, and present Hindutva as a defensive rather than expansionist ideology. This approach reflects previous instances in which selective outrage was used to deflect criticism of human rights abuses. The use of terms like “genocide” may serve as a political tool, enabling diaspora lobbying to influence perceptions of South Asia in ways that could promote India’s strategic interests while potentially drawing focus from its domestic challenges.

The lobbying activities of Hindutva-affiliated groups in the United States depend significantly on selective framing. Isolated incidents of violence against Hindus in Bangladesh are amplified into broad claims of “genocide,” often supported by ambiguous statistics and misrepresented information to create a narrative of existential threat. This manufactured outrage diverts attention from the more widespread persecution of Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs within India, which is evident in mob violence, discriminatory laws, and exclusionary political discourse—phenomena commonly referred to as “Majoritarianism”-meaning governance that privileges the religious majority over minority groups.

By consistently depicting Hindus as endangered abroad, these organizations aim to distract from India’s own majoritarian practices. This reversal of reality positions Hindutva as a defensive ideology and encourages U.S. policymakers to disregard the ongoing erosion of pluralism and diversity in South Asia.

This campaign has found support among several Indian-origin legislators in the United States. Figures such as Raja Krishnamoorthi, Ro Khanna, Jennifer Rajkumar, Suhas Subramanium, and Shri Thanedar have publicly condemned incidents like the lynching of Dipu Chandra Das in Bangladesh, using these events to increase criticism of the Yunus-led government. By characterizing Bangladesh as overseeing a “slow genocide,” this narrative can contribute to calls for external intervention and to framing specific violent incidents as part of a broader pattern.

This selective outrage has had a notable impact: Bangladesh is often depicted as violating minority rights, while reports of longstanding discrimination in India against Muslim, Christian, and Sikh communities sometimes receive less attention. The effectiveness of these narratives relies on diaspora influence in Washington, amplifying isolated incidents for geopolitical leverage and, at times, deflecting from the issue of majoritarianism in India. Ultimately, observers suggest that such lobbying campaigns go beyond fundamental advocacy, with implications for how India’s political interests are perceived abroad.

By focusing attention on receptive U.S. policymakers and media outlets, the narrative of a “Hindu genocide” in Bangladesh is amplified. It can be used to advocate for political, economic, or even military involvement in Dhaka’s internal affairs. Isolated incidents may be portrayed as existential threats, while concerns raised about India’s treatment of its Muslim, Christian, and Sikh communities sometimes receive less emphasis. This approach demonstrates the use of disinformation and lobbying as tools of regional influence. In this context, India is at times portrayed as a global advocate for minority rights, which can divert focus from ongoing domestic discussions about majoritarian practices. This illustrates how coordinated messaging can advance geopolitical objectives.

In contrast to the international narratives disseminated abroad, domestic conditions within India present a markedly different reality. Dalit communities continue to experience persistent violence and social exclusion, while Muslims are subjected to discriminatory legislation such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and vigilante attacks. Sikhs face marginalization through securitized representations, and Muslim women are disproportionately targeted in debates over personal law and online harassment.

Collectively, these trends indicate a sustained erosion of minority rights under the influence of Hindutva politics—a set of movements promoting Hindu primacy in political and social spheres. The primary challenge is not the fabrication of falsehoods overseas, but the reinforcement of pluralism within India. A robust democracy necessitates confronting internal inequalities, upholding constitutional protections, and encouraging open dialogue. As scholars have noted, lasting influence is grounded in credibility, which is established through justice, equality, and respect for diversity.

Views expressed are author’s own