Every year in the month of December, the European magazine The Economist announces its “country of the year” award. According to The Economist’s own description, it is not based on how the country is performing on the parameters of wealth and happiness, but it “celebrates the nations that have improved the most” over the past year.
This year, The Economist gave the “Country of the Year” award to none other than, drumrolls…. Bangladesh! Why? Because, according to The Economist, the people of the country “toppled” an authoritarian regime. Interestingly, while doing so, The Economist completely ignored the ongoing persecution of Hindus in the country.
The flawed premise of ‘improvement’
According to The Economist, the award does not recognise the wealthiest or happiest nations. The award is for the nations that have demonstrated the most significant improvement. This year, The Economist believed that Bangladesh deserved the crown for toppling an “authoritarian regime” and transitioning towards a “technocratic interim government” led by “Nobel laureate” Muhammad Yunus. The magazine lauded the student-led protests that ousted Sheikh Hasina.
It further claimed that removing Hasina has “restored order” and brought “economic stability,” which is a sign of progress. Let’s forget the fact that recently Bangladesh has “demanded” 50,000 tonnes of Indian rice and it has millions in pending electricity bills that it has not paid to Adani Group. Furthermore, the textile industry of Bangladesh is in shambles as well. It is unclear what “economic stability” The Economist has lauded which is a sign of “progress.”
Interestingly, The Economist conveniently ignored the glaring reality of the surge in targeted violence against the Hindu minority in Bangladesh since Hasina’s fall. Within just three days of the regime’s collapse, over 205 attacks on Hindu temples, businesses, and residences were reported. OpIndia documented those cases and since August 2024, we have extensively reported the atrocities faced by Hindus and other minorities in Bangladesh.
For instance, the vandalism of Lord Ganesha idols during a procession in Chittagong and the destruction of Durga idols in Pabna and Kishoreganj districts epitomise the scale of religious intolerance. But all that has been completely ignored by The Economist.
Now the question is, can a nation genuinely “improve” while its minority communities face escalating violence and suppression? According to the data provided by the Ministry of External Affairs in the Parliament, the number of attacks on minorities shot up significantly in three years. There were 47 reported attacks on Hindus in 2022, 302 in 2023 (a 545% increase compared to 2022) and 2,200 in 2024 (a 628% increase compared to 2023 and shockingly a 4,580% increase compared to 2022). The Economist’s silence on these atrocities raises uncomfortable questions about its understanding of progress.
Ignoring atrocities against Hindus
The plight of Hindus in Bangladesh can be seen as a broader pattern of marginalisation and persecution of the Hindu community across the subcontinent. In recent months, radical Islamist groups have intensified attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh. These groups have weaponised accusations of blasphemy to harass Hindus and Hindu organisations. Cases such as those of Hridoy Pal and Ustad Mandal are prime examples of such cases.
Even Hindu organisations like ISKCON have not been spared. Attempts to ban ISKCON and the arrest of Hindu leader Chinmoy Krishna Das Prabhu highlight the systematic targeting of Hindu institutions. The interim government’s decision to stifle Hindu protests with fabricated charges of sedition shows that there is a deliberate campaign to erode their freedoms.
The West’s selective morality
The mounting evidence, however, has not been enough for global bodies as well as media houses that have largely ignored this persecution. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has avoided documenting these hate crimes, as revealed in one of our recent reports. OHCHR’s failure to categorise the attacks as religiously motivated hate crimes highlights a deliberate effort to sanitise the ongoing violence. Instead, they focus on broader communal narratives, conveniently erasing the religious dimension of the atrocities.
Similarly, The Wire, an Indian publication led by American national Siddharth Varadarajan, has downplayed the severity of Hindu persecution in Bangladesh. According to our recent detailed exposé, The Wire has consistently reframed ethnic cleansing as “exaggerated” or “politically motivated,” whitewashing radical Islamist groups of responsibility. This minimisation not only misleads readers but also reinforces dangerous narratives that diminish the suffering of Hindu minorities.
The BBC, too, has come under fire for its coverage of anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh. In a report by OpIndia, it was pointed out how BBC whitewashed the deliberate targeting of Hindus, framing it as “political violence” rather than acknowledging the religious motivations. By attributing the violence to broader political unrest, the BBC effectively erased the systemic persecution faced by Hindus in Bangladesh and perpetuated a narrative that toned down the accountability of the ruling interim government as well as the perpetrators behind the atrocities.
When it comes to Western media and institutions, they have a long history of showing double standards while addressing violence against Hindus. Media houses and portals like The Economist, The Wire, and the BBC have consistently downplayed the intensity of atrocities against Hindus. They often frame such incidents as “political” or “economic unrest” and throw the religious context under the rug. These narratives not only misrepresent the scale of persecution of Hindus but also free the perpetrators of their accountability on an international stage.
The Economist’s anti-Hindu bias
Over the years, The Economist has demonstrated that it has a clear bias against Hindus, Hindutva, and the Indian government, specifically under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The bias is clear through a sustained effort to paint Hindu nationalism as an “extremist” movement while neglecting the historical, cultural, and political contexts that have shaped the socio-political landscape of India.
During our research, we found that there is a recurring theme in The Economist’s coverage as it portrays Hindutva as a monolithic, supremacist ideology. For example, in an article titled “What is Hindutva, the ideology of India’s ruling party?”, the magazine painted Hindutva as a tool for marginalising minorities. The Economist completely disregarded its roots in India’s anti-colonial struggle. The magazine reduced the complex cultural philosophy, which is the base of Hindutva, to a caricature of exclusionary nationalism. It failed to engage with the nuance of a movement that celebrates the civilisational heritage of the country while addressing historical grievances.
Furthermore, The Economist runs a narrative that often ignores and distorts the context of policies and events in India. For example, it criticised the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and called it a discriminatory law. In doing so, The Economist completely neglected the act’s primary aim, which is to provide refuge to persecuted minorities from the neighbouring Islamic states. The way The Economist portrayed the act not only misrepresented it but also obscured the systemic violence faced by Hindus and other non-Muslims in these countries.
The magazine’s coverage of Prime Minister Modi’s administration often reflects a similar pattern of selective outrage. In pieces like “How Narendra Modi is remaking India into a Hindu state,” The Economist accused the government of enabling vigilante violence against minorities while disregarding its numerous welfare initiatives.
In fact, after PM Modi came to power, marginalised communities, irrespective of their caste, religion, and background, have got the maximum share in welfare schemes. But the publications like The Economist ignore the data and run narratives against the government just because of ideological differences.
The Economist has also targeted Hindu organisations such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), portraying it as a “bigoted paramilitary group” in articles like “Inside the RSS, the world’s most powerful volunteer group.” This characterisation ignores the RSS’s extensive charitable activities, which include running schools, health clinics, and disaster relief programmes.
Instead, the publication fixates on unsubstantiated allegations and conspiracy theories, feeding a narrative of fear and mistrust. The Economist also portrayed Hindu organisations like Vishva Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal as oppressors which is a completely false portrayal of these organisations. Furthermore, they claimed “Love Jihad” is a “conspiracy theory”, disregarding the fact there are countless cases reported by OpIndia that clearly show that Love Jihad is not a “myth” but a dangerous reality. VHP, Bajrang Dal, and other Hindu organisations have a long history of providing much-needed support when disaster strikes. Furthermore, they are the first line of defence when Hindus are under attack.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of The Economist’s bias is its dismissal of Hindu cultural expression as a political tool. Articles on initiatives like the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya or the promotion of religious tourism often frame these developments as attempts to consolidate Hindu dominance. Such framing disregards the deep cultural and spiritual significance these projects hold for millions of Indians. By trivialising these expressions of faith, The Economist alienates its readers from understanding the pluralistic ethos of Hinduism.
The deep-rooted bias against Hindus and Hindu organisations is a clear attempt to distort the reality of India’s political and cultural landscape. It also fuels global anti-Hindu sentiments. By consistently portraying Hindutva as synonymous with intolerance, The Economist is contributing to a narrative that undermines the importance of the Hindu community not only in India but on a global scale.
The need for accountability
The Economist’s decision to award Bangladesh ‘Country of the Year’ while ignoring its escalating anti-Hindu violence is clear evidence of the West’s selective conscience. By prioritising superficial narratives of progress over the lived realities of persecuted minorities, The Economist has undermined its credibility as an impartial observer.
International media and organisations need to confront their biases and acknowledge the systemic oppression faced by the Hindu community in countries where they are in the minority. Media houses must do honest reporting rather than painting the Hindu community in a negative light and whitewashing crimes against them.
