Before commenting on the treatment of minorities in Bangladesh, the Indian government must acknowledge that its own treatment of minorities has repercussions, said eminent economist and public policy expert Debapriya Bhattacharya in a recent interview with India`s fortnightly magazine Frontline.

Published on April 1 on the magazine’s website, the interview—conducted by Nirupama Subramanian—delves into various aspects of India-Bangladesh bilateral relations, particularly in light of political shifts following the ousting of the Awami League-led government last year.

India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar recently informed the Indian Parliament that Bangladesh witnessed 2,400 attacks on minorities in 2024 and 72 incidents in 2025.

When asked whether he believed these figures were exaggerated, Debapriya said that multiple methodologies exist for calculating such incidents. He pointed out that after the former prime minister’s departure, Bangladesh experienced a significant deterioration in law and order. "The police force was in disarray. For a time, security fell to the Army and paramilitary forces, but the situation was unstable."

He further said that "many religious minorities in Bangladesh have historically supported the ruling party"—previously the Awami League.

"So, in some cases, it`s difficult to separate whether an attack was targeted at a Hindu individual for their faith or because they were a political supporter of the Awami League," said Debapriya, who also heads the committee responsible for the White Paper on the State of the Bangladesh Economy.

However, he emphasized another critical perspective.

"Religious minorities in Bangladesh—such as Hindus and Buddhists—are part of the majority in India. Similarly, religious minorities in India—such as Muslims—are a majority in Bangladesh. So, when India comments on the treatment of minorities in Bangladesh, it must also acknowledge that its own treatment of minorities has repercussions," he also said.

When asked about his personal sense of security as a minority in Bangladesh, Debapriya responded, "I may not be the best example. I have been a refugee in India twice—first from 1964 to 1967 after the riots in the 1960s and again in 1971 during the war. But my parents never left Bangladesh. I returned, invested in my homeland, and built my life here. I left prestigious international positions to contribute to my country."

He also highlighted his family’s deep-rooted connections to Bangladesh’s political and judicial history.

"My mother was a Member of Parliament from Sheikh Hasina`s party, and my father was a Supreme Court judge appointed by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. But these personal connections don`t affect my professional and fact-based perspective," he said.

Acknowledging the risks of living in Bangladesh, where identity politics plays a role, he remarked, "I also believe that a significant section of Bangladesh`s society remains committed to secularism, human rights, and the protection of all minority communities—Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, ethnic minorities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, and indigenous groups in the plains. This commitment to inclusion is the essence of nation-building."

The interview also addressed the ongoing debate over a reform commission proposal suggesting the replacement of the word secular with pluralism in the Constitution.

Clarifying the issue, Debapriya explained that this was merely a proposal within the commission`s report and not a final decision. "It is one of many inputs in an ongoing political process. Overreacting at this stage is premature, as it is still under review."

He further said that in a democratic society, diverse opinions exist, and some individuals may take extreme positions due to ignorance, ideology, or political motives.

"…some people in Bangladesh seek to rewrite history, but that doesn`t mean their views will define national policy," Debapriya Bhattacharya added.