Refer Report
Regarding the details of the alleged discussion between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Joe Biden on the issue of Bangladesh a few days ago, there is a difference in the statements issued by both the countries. The situation in Bangladesh and the security of Hindus in that country were covered in the conversation, said a statement issued by India’s Ministry of External Affairs. However, there is no such mention in the statement on the White House website about the same conversation. This raised doubts about whether Modi and Biden really spoke about Hindus in Bangladesh. Expressing displeasure at the same, the Ministry of External Affairs said that the statement does not provide all the details and the statements of the two countries may differ. There is no purpose in this confusion. After Sheikh Hasina’s abdication and abdication, India expressed concern over the attacks on Hindu temples and shrines in Bangladesh. But Mohammad Yunus, the chief advisor of the interim government of that country, has also shown sensitivity and personally visited some temples and assured about their safety. Yet why should many leaders in India feel the need to repeatedly express their concern for Hindus in Bangladesh? If some fundamentalists think that Sheikh Hasina was a friend of India, that means she is a friend of Hindus, then it is wrong. Fundamentalist churches have renounced both conscience and thought. But we also have to think about whether we violate many signals by presenting assurances to the US about the safety of Hindus there. When any country or prominent person in the country says that the Muslims of India are insecure, the government officials here get angry. There is nothing wrong with that. Behind that resentment lies the notion that India is a sovereign country and is sensitive and capable of the security and prosperity of all its minorities. There is room to believe that Bangladesh is also a sovereign country and is still sensitive about the security of its minorities.
From India’s point of view, this entire chapter has some problematic aspects. On the one hand, we gave shelter, what to do with that Sheikh Hasinabai, this is the question. If one or more lawsuits are filed against Hasina in the courts of Bangladesh, our Panchayat will be held. At such a time, it will not be a mere political matter for us to support Haseen. Western countries like Britain have denied them political asylum. Moreover, it has also been observed that granting asylum to a political refugee like the Dalai Lama is often problematic. If Hasinabai starts showing enthusiasm like the Dalai Lama, it will be a doozy for us. Meanwhile, the statements of leaders like Yogi Adityanath, Hemant Biswa Sarma are adding fuel to the fire. According to many Hindu political analysts in Bengal, reports that Hindus in Bangladesh are insecure are entirely untrue. Such news is spread primarily by Hindutva organizations in the country and non-Bengalis among non-resident Indians. Moreover, the Bengali, Hindu analysts have warned that the claims that Hindus in Bangladesh are in danger are unfair to the Muslims who are rooting for these Hindus in Bangladesh and to the Hindu students who stand alongside the Muslim students there against Hasina.
So there is a need to handle the situation with proper thinking and conscience without giving way to confusion and confusion. If injustice is being done against the minorities in Bangladesh with the connivance and complicity of the interim government, we can open the way of dialogue with any leader of Bangladesh. There is no need to take this issue to a third country other than us or Bangladesh. We can ask the government of Bangladesh about forcing some Hindu teachers to quit their jobs or destroying Hindu temples or mattas. For this, the government should not forget that it is also its duty to curb the absurd and irresponsible statements of some leaders here.
Source: Marathi