Category: South Asia

In the Decade Modi Ruled India, A Look at What China Achieved

In 2025, China has become ‘competitive’ in all sectors where it was ‘behind’ in 2015 and is the global leader in half of them.

In the decade that the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) ideology took control in India, things did not stand still elsewhere. In 2015, China’s Prime Minister Li Keqiang announced a 10-year initiative to reduce China’s reliance on foreign technology and to move China from being a low-cost manufacturer to a direct competitor with the world’s most advanced economies — Germany, Taiwan, Japan, Korea and the United States. This plan was named “Made in China” 2025. It identified sectors like semiconductors, artificial intelligence, robotics, commercial aircraft, drones, high-speed rail, electric vehicles and batteries, advanced ships and solar panels.

The sectors were classified into those where in China’s assessment it was “behind”, where it was “competitive” and where it was a “global leader”. In 2015, the Chinese were, according to Bloomberg, behind in most sectors, competitive in a couple (high-speed rail, batteries) and leaders in solar panels. The ambition was to ensure that China was competitive or leading in all of these industries.

After the plan was announced, it seriously offended the US and its allies. The US in particular is not used to another nation being a “global leader” in anything, because it alone has the God-given right to dominate the world.

The US also felt threatened by the rise of China, which today has an economy of about two-thirds the size of the United States, and will likely equal it in the next couple of decades.

Also read: By Ignoring the Mistreatment of Deportees, India Is Undermining Its Own Dignity

This dislike of China’s ambitions was so deep that China soon stopped speaking about “Made in China 2025”. After Donald Trump first took office in 2017, the US slapped tariffs against China. The following year, China’s Huawei came under sanctions and restrictions. Then, under President Joe Biden, the US banned the sale of high-end computer chips to China. All of these actions were to harm China’s further rise and an economic partnership that had benefited both nations began to rupture. Today Trump is willing to penalise Americans by risking inflation through his tariffs, so long as they will slow China’s growth.

Now, while China did not advertise the name “Make in China 2025”, the plan continued to be implemented. In 2025, it has become competitive in all of the sectors and is the global leader in half of them. China today produces and flies commercial aircraft of the type only Boeing and Airbus make. The Chinese-made Comac planes are already being used by airlines across the world.

Last month DeepSeek revealed to the world what the Chinese capabilities are in artificial intelligence. This came as a shock to America for two reasons. The first was that the Chinese did this without having access to the most advanced chips from Nvidia and likely without as much access to capital as the California firms have. The second reason was that Silicon Valley never imagined that it would be equalled by a company from across the Pacific. There are only two serious contenders in the race to develop artificial general intelligence, and it is the US and China, not Europe and not any other country.

Despite facing export controls, Huawei now makes chips that are only a little behind the most advanced being made by Taiwan. They are not at the cutting edge, but they are homemade and Chinese talent can make do with lesser resources as DeepSeek shows. China makes its own aircraft-carriers — the largest was deployed in 2022 — and LNG carriers. It debuted some of the most advanced military aircraft in the world in January. Of course, in electric cars, high-speed rail, solar panels, batteries and drones, China has no rival. It is the world’s largest producer, consumer and exporter of electric cars. It makes 80% of the world’s solar panels, 75% of the world’s lithium ion batteries (one Chinese company, CATL, alone controls a third of the global market) and 75% of the world’s drones (again, one company, DJI, controls a significant chunk of the global market). China has two-thirds of the world’s high-speed rail network, about 40,000 km (the Ahmedabad-Mumbai distance is 500 km), and China’s network is still growing.

Also read: Three Things About India that Shackled Indians Returning Home Tell Us

Many in the West, and especially America, have been sceptical of China’s continued growth and believe that it will soon falter. However, this view has been present for at least 20 years but China has not obliged them. Consider that India and China were about even in 1990, on the cusp of our economic reforms, but today China’s economy is six times the size of India’s.

The rupture between India and China after 2020, the tariffs from the United States and a reluctance to grant access to advanced Chinese goods from India, has meant that Indians are only vaguely aware of the progress our neighbour has made. In many ways China is inward looking and the absence of a popular English media there has not made it easy for us to appreciate their progress. Our media’s ignorance or lack of interest in China’s progress has compounded the problem.

But the world recognises that China has become an advanced economy, through a plan conceived and implemented over just one decade. Li Keqiang died in 2023, but he went with likely a sense of satisfaction about what had been delivered by China under its 10-year plan.

This was the same decade, to remind readers once again, in which the BJP and our prime minister held thrall over India with their ideology.

Aakar Patel is the chair of Amnesty International India. 

As Foreign Ministers’ Meet, Bangladesh Urges India to Revive SAARC

The 2016 SAARC summit in Pakistan was cancelled after India withdrew, following the attack on the military base at Uri. The last meeting of the SAARC Standing Committee which comprises foreign secretaries was held in March 2016.

New Delhi: In his second meeting with Indian external affairs minister Jaishankar in five months, Bangladesh’s interim government foreign affairs adviser, Mohammad Touhid Hossain, urged India to agree to a foreign secretaries’ meeting under the SAARC framework – something that has not taken place in nine years.

The request was made, according to the Bangladesh foreign ministry’s readout, when Hossain spoke to Jaishankar on the sidelines of the Indian Ocean Conference in Oman on February 16. They had previously met in New York last September.

Bangladesh’s chief adviser, Mohammed Yunus, has frequently talked about reviving the South Asian body at several platforms. He had also raised it when Indian foreign secretary Vikram Misri visited Dhaka in December 2024.

The 2016 SAARC summit in Pakistan was cancelled after India withdrew, following the attack on the military base at Uri. The last meeting of the SAARC Standing Committee which comprises foreign secretaries was held in March 2016.

The regional grouping has remained dormant, with India instead pushing for sub-regional cooperation through BIMSTEC, which excludes countries in the western part of South Asia.

India’s only public comment on the bilateral meeting came in a post on X from Jaishankar, who stated that the “conversation was focused on our bilateral relationship, as also on BIMSTEC,” without mentioning SAARC.

The Bangladeshi readout was silent on BIMSTEC, even as Dhaka set to assume its chairmanship in a few months when the next leaders’ summit is held in Thailand.

Hossain spoke about the “importance of holding the meeting of SAARC Standing Committee and requested consideration of the Government of India in this regard”, stated the Bangladeshi foreign ministry.

It also stated that Bangladesh foreign affairs adviser “emphasized the importance of initiating the discussion for renewal of the Ganges Water Treaty”.

When then Bangladesh prime minister Sheikh Hasina visited New Delhi, a key announcement was the decision to begin discussions on renewing the 1996 Ganga Waters Treaty, which expires in 2026. Less than two months later, Hasina was back in Delhi – this time as the toppled head of state, following her government’s ouster amid student-led protests.

Since the change in government, tensions between the two capitals have remained high, given the perception that Hasina was closely aligned with India. Bangladesh has officially requested Hasina’s extradition so she can face legal proceedings, but India is yet to respond.

While India has raised concerns over continued attacks on minorities, particularly Hindus, Bangladesh has maintained that the figures are exaggerated.

The Bangladesh foreign ministry stated that “both sides recognized the challenges the two neighbours are facing in terms of bilateral relations and discussed about the necessity to work together to address those.”

Meeting ahead of talks between the border forces’ chiefs, both foreign ministers have expressed hope that the “various border related issues would be discussed and resolved during the meeting.”

The Visa Barrier That Restricts South Asians From Travelling The World

Nothing seems more insulting than applying for a travel visa as a South Asian and being doled out a vague rejection slip in return.

As more and more young South Asians are saving up and broadening their travel horizons, inflexible budgets, long immigration queues and weak passports are not the only hurdles complicating their mobility. Exhausting, humiliating and sometimes travel-hostile visa regimes, loaded with a tinge of global-north sanctimony (Europe, I am talking about you) restrict South Asians to a handful of countries. 

While security concerns and socio-political complexities are understandable, rigorous and travel-hostile visa policies create an unparalleled sense of humiliation.

 Such humiliation is manifest in the exhausting afternoon murmurs outside foreign embassies, consulates and biometric centers in my home country, India. It’s a sad sight to witness – a circus of clean-shaven men and well-dressed wives waiting for their interviews outside the doors, hoping for a rare one-time opportunity to dazzle and display their best fashion, manners and old-world antics: 

“Namaste, I am a law-abiding citizen…”

“Salam Alaykum, I am a Muslim, but not the terrorist kind…”

“Hello, I speak good English and my kid speaks good English too…”

 This, cocktailed with blind faith and fear of refusal, has also spawned a new kind of devotion. For a deeply faith-oriented country like India, where places of worship often become political props, it also offers a unique set of ‘visa temples’.

One such place is the Chilkur Balaji Temple in Hyderabad, which has a unique cult of millions of visa worshippers, asking to get one step closer to their “American dream”.

 Sophisticated apartheid: Of documents and stringency

 Numerous factors dictate and shape strict visa divides. 

 Factors such as national economy, per capita income, proof of strong home ties, the intent of return and a long list of supporting documents – confirmed return flight tickets, hotel bookings, bank statements, tax returns, travel insurance, salary slips, no objection certificates and employment letters – stultify visa processes by burdening travellers with disproportionate documentation. 

Some visa agents have also advised sharing pet ownership proofs to demonstrate strong home ties.

 Stringent documentation in South Asian countries, at times, is an exhausting prerequisite, given a culture of bureaucratic red tape, systemic inefficiencies, delays and corruption, and lastly, a quintessential South Asian habit of non-documentation, where proofs and facts are stored more in stories, oral heritage and word-of-mouth, than in formal and foolproof documentations.  

 While national security, health hazards and country-specific complexities indeed necessitate some stringent measures, denial of short-term tourist visas with the prior assumption of misuse creates a new kind of apartheid, which allows only a chosen few to travel, while exposing the ‘others’ to humiliating checks and scrutiny. 

Such stringency also discourages genuine travellers from even applying for a travel visa, therefore posing threats to the global travel economy.

 Who profits?

 A LAGO Collective study reveals that the European Union profits around €130 million per year through rejected visa applications, with African and Asian countries bearing the cost of paying for their own rejection. 

India alone paid €12,150,000 in 2023 in rejected short-term Schengen visa applications – the third highest cost of rejections following Turkey and Algeria. 

Pakistan, with a rejection rate of 49.54%, lost €3,344,640 on a short-term Schengen visa, while Bangladesh, lost €1,362,160 (43.33%), Nepal (35.97%) and Sri Lanka (38.39%) lost around €234,560 and €746,640 in 2023, respectively.

For a short-term U.K. visa, the results are equally disheartening, with Asian and African countries paying a disproportionately high cost over rejections. 

Also read: Beyond Boundaries: Decoding Why Gujaratis Are Obsessed With Settling Overseas

With exorbitant and non-refundable visa appointment fees, such a strict visa regime affects an ecosystem of ‘reverse remittances’ at its dullest, where travellers from the global south are made to pay for their travel aspirations.

At its brightest, this is silent and persistent colonisation that weaponises visas to continue feeding on the former colonies, which honestly have not much left to be fed upon. 

A word for mobility

To rage about passport privilege in the global south may sometimes seem a bit vain when one could talk about homelessness, farmers’ suicides, or perhaps the futility of bullet trains in a country with potholed roads. 

However, we must remember that travelling is not merely the act of moving across places to do some soul-searching yoga in Bali or finding a billionaire lover in Tokyo. 

In a world united by hatred, geo-political tensions, and nativism and protectionism, travelling talks about convergences and similarities. It is about easing, if not erasing border controls and about diffusing senseless political tensions and sharp prejudices, all without needing the burden of formal apparatuses.

On a lighter note, travelling also exposes us to our quirky differences – to burp or not to burp, to tip or not to tip – and yet cultivates love for our shared curiosity about the ‘other’ who might not be an ‘other’ after all.

Sachin Solanki is a writer.

For South Asian Migrant Workers in Lebanon, Cricket Erases Border Politics and War

Indians and Pakistanis play shoulder to shoulder for Brothers XI. ‘When you’re far from home, you realize how much you need others around,’ says a player.

Beirut: War is not a good enough reason for the migrant workers – mostly South Asians – to give up on their weekly game of cricket. A parking lot behind a century old church in the heart of Beirut is where they gather each week to play, connect, and forge a sense of community.

On a bright, sunny Sunday morning at Asas Stadium in Beirut, Lebanon, Brothers XI is locked in a fierce cricket match against a team of Syrian refugees. Vice-captain Satnam Singh ‘Raju’ from Punjab’s Mansa, wearing a green jersey with Imran Khan’s face on it, yells in frustration as a teammate misses a catch. It’s a tough match, but the collective firepower of the Indian and Pakistani migrant workers on the team gets them the win.

Raju is one of the 11 men who make up the team Brothers XI, each from different parts of India and Pakistan – a rare bond, as players from both countries rarely find themselves on the same side. The idea to form this team came from their captain, Majid Satti, from Islamabad.

For Satti, these Sunday games are like Eid. “The moment we go home on Sunday night, we’re already thinking about next Sunday. We don’t have anyone else here. This is the only family we have.”

‘What is now a thriving community of nine men’s cricket teams and 11 women’s teams, was once an underground sport.’ Photo: Kanika Gupta.

Raju, who works six days a week as an electrician, putting in nine hours a day for a salary of $600-700 a month, says his work is too exhausting and their cricket activity on Sunday helps them destress and find some fun in their otherwise mundane lives. 

What is now a thriving community of nine men’s cricket teams and 11 women’s teams, was once an underground sport when Sri Lanka’s Sugath Fernando first arrived in Lebanon in the mid-1990s.

A migrant worker himself, Fernando has worked in the country for almost three decades and calls himself lucky to have an employer who treats him and pays him well. This is a statement that puts a spotlight on the exploitative kafala system – a sponsorship-based labour system used in many Gulf countries, including Lebanon, that ties migrant workers to their employers. 

Under this system, workers’ legal status and residency are dependent on their sponsors, also known as kafeels, who control their work permits and can restrict their freedom, often leading to exploitation, abuse, and lack of legal protections.

“We do not have supportive laws in Lebanon,” says Fernando, referring to the system which leaves migrant workers with few options. 

‘You leave your family behind and only get to see them once every couple of years, for a month or two.’ Photo: Kanika Gupta.

“As a migrant, it’s hard. You leave your family behind and only get to see them once every couple of years, for a month or two. You miss everything, the good and the bad. Some of them work in such tough conditions, like being told not to talk to others from their own community or working very long hours. Cricket is their only escape where they meet every week and have some fun time together.”

Twenty-eight-year-old Inder Singh from Jalandhar, Punjab, has been working in Beirut for the past eight years, often putting in 10 to 12-hour days, sometimes even longer. Despite having only one day off on Sundays, he prefers being on the field with his team rather than staying at home.

“We’re all brothers here,” he says about his team. When asked about the politics between India and Pakistan, he says, “We keep politics off the field.”

“It’s a different thing outside India. Before coming to Lebanon, I had the same mindset as everyone back home. But meeting so many people here, speaking the same language, everything feels friendlier. When you’re far from home, you realise how much you need others around. What’s the point of treating anyone badly? We look out for each other. If someone’s stuck, we don’t hesitate – we call, and they come without a second thought. They don’t even think, ‘This is an Indian calling me.’”

Raju agrees that they don’t have time to get caught up in the politics between their countries. Here in Lebanon, they’re simply Brothers XI – a team that comes together every Sunday to unwind and do what they love.

‘We eat together, play together, and even hang out on Saturday nights.’. Photo: Kanika Gupta.

Fernando also exclaims that the Pakistan and India team together is the biggest story in the cricket fields of Lebanon. 

“Politically, everyone knows what’s been happening in India and Pakistan. The British are aware of the rivalry within cricket between the two countries. For Americans, cricket is foreign, but when they see this team, especially Brothers XI playing together, they recognise them as a strong team in Lebanon’s cricket scene. Most of the time, they win.”

Satti, the team’s captain relishes these games and says he doesn’t care about politics either. 

“We eat together, play together, and even hang out on Saturday nights. We came together through cricket and life, but it’s the game that really brought us close. Now, we’re not just teammates; we’re really good friends.” 

But other than the game, Fernando takes pride in the network and the community this game has built for all the migrant workers in Lebanon. 

‘With such a large community, and the biggest in Lebanon, we’ve built strong connections with churches.’ Photo: Kanika Gupta.

“It’s a diverse community here, not just Sri Lankans, but also Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, and Indians. With such a large community, and the biggest in Lebanon, we’ve built strong connections with churches. They’ve always supported migrant workers and work closely with NGOs. Thanks to these connections, we can easily guide people to the right places. Whenever someone needs shelter, food, healthcare, or anything else, we communicate and lend a hand. Even during the war, we helped our Sri Lankan and Indian brothers and sisters with shelter and support. Now, it’s become a network – cricket is just one part, but it’s about being there for each other in tough times.”

Despite Lebanon’s ongoing economic crisis and the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah, which peaked in October 2024 before a ceasefire in November, cricket never stopped.

“We could see the warplanes and hear the bombs in the distance, but we kept playing,” says Inder.

Now that the ceasefire has held, Fernando remains hopeful.

“It was supposed to rain today,” he tells me over the phone from Beirut. “But it’s bright and sunny. Beirut’s looking hopeful, with a new president in place and perfect weather for cricket. We’re happy.”

Adani Green Pulls Out of Sri Lankan Wind Power Projects Amid Tariff Review

The Sri Lankan government had sought to renegotiate the power purchase agreement to reduce costs, following alleged allegations of bribery against Adani group’s founder Gautam Adani.

New Delhi: Adani Green Energy Limited (AGEL) has withdrawn from renewable wind energy project and two transmission projects in Sri Lanka, the company announced in a press statement.

The Sri Lankan government had sought to renegotiate the power purchase agreement – estimated to cost a total of $1 billion – to reduce costs, following alleged allegations of bribery against Adani group’s founder Gautam Adani, Reuters reported.

The projects, which included the construction of two wind farms in Mannar and Pooneryn, were expected to generate 484 megawatts of power. However, the Sri Lankan government’s decision to review and renegotiate the terms of the agreement led to Adani Green’s withdrawal.

In a letter to the Sri Lankan Board of Investment, AGEL cited the constitution of a new cabinet-appointed negotiations committee to renegotiate the project proposal as the reason for their withdrawal. Despite securing approvals on tariff and procuring necessary clearances, AGEL expressed respect for Sri Lanka’s sovereign rights and choices.

“In pursuit of said proposal, Adani Green teams had several rounds of discussions with state appointed committees and after more than 14 rounds of discussions, approval was accorded on tariff, fixed for 20 years, for the Power Purchase Agreement,” the letter by AGEL company secretary Pragnesh Darji to Sri Lanka’s Board of Investment (BOI) Chairman Arjuna Herath, mentioned.

The company had procured almost all required clearances, except for the Mannar Environmental approval and a related Supreme Court case. Additionally, AGEL had worked on acquiring land for the project and developing the associated transmission system, incurring expenses of around $5 million, the company stated.

Further, AGEL expressed willingness to participate in future development projects in Sri Lanka, if considered.

“Our executives recently had discussions with CEB officials as also with Ministry officials at Colombo. It was learnt that another Cabinet appointed negotiations committee (CANC) and Project Committee (PC) would be constituted to renegotiate the project proposal. This aspect was deliberated at the Board of our company and it was decided that while the company fully respects the sovereign rights of Sri Lanka and its choices, it would respectfully withdraw from the said project. As we bow out, we wish to reaffirm that we would always be available for Sri Lankan Government to have us undertake any development opportunity, if it ever considers Adani Group to participate,” the company added.

On January 24, AFP first mentioned in a report that Colombo revoked the 20-year power purchase deal, which was struck in May. Notably, Anura Dissanayake, in the run-up to the presidential election in September, pledged to cancel the deal if he assumed power.

AFP had cited an unnamed senior energy ministry official as saying the agreement was revoked but the project – whose 484 MW power plants are to be located in the country’s north and involve a $442 million investment – was not cancelled. Similarly, Financial Times had also reported on January 24 that Dissanayake’s cabinet in a meeting last month decided to revoke the purchase deal, citing minutes dated January 2.

However, the Adani Group had issued a statement the same day saying that reports saying the project stood cancelled were “false and misleading”.

On January 24, the Adani Group had mentioned that the cabinet’s decision to “re-evaluate the tariff approved in May 2024 is part of a standard review process, particularly with a new government, to ensure that the terms align with their current priorities and energy policies.”

As per reports, the Sri Lankan government had initially agreed to pay 8.26 cents per unit, sparking controversy and lawsuits from activists concerned about the environmental impact and high tariff. According to documents filed in court, a cabinet decision on January 2 overturned a previous decision made in May 2024 regarding the tariff for Adani’s 484MW project. However, the government remained tight-lipped, citing the ongoing court case as the reason for not making a final decision on the Adani deals.

Hasina May Have Targeted Them Earlier But Bangladesh’s Islamists Are Not Above the Law

Their newfound freedom doesn’t justify creating mobs that dictate the terms of civilian rights in a country with a functioning government.

On Monday (February 10), a group of protesters descended on Sabyasachi Publication’s stall at the Amar Ekushey Book Fair in Dhaka, enraged by the display of a book by Taslima Nasrin, an exiled Bangladeshi writer currently residing in India.

Videos of the incident quickly spread across social media, showing the agitated crowd demanding that a writer present at the stall “hold his ears”. The individual in question was later identified as Shatabdi Vobo.

The footage, a chaotic blend of voices and actions, showed Vobo appearing to slap someone in response to mounting physical threats. Meanwhile, a few men in traditional Punjabi attire and beards attempted to shield him.

According to the Dhaka Tribune, police intervened, escorting the writer out of the fair while Vobo was forced to publicly apologise. The stall was temporarily shuttered in the aftermath.

The incident quickly sparked an outpouring of media criticism and left the interim government in a precarious position. Since the fall of Sheikh Hasina on August 5, following a massive student-led uprising, protests have become a daily fixture.

While the interim government has largely managed to defuse these protests non-violently, many critics liken the current climate to a shaken soda bottle. After years of simmering discontent under Hasina’s regime – marked by a stifling of free expression – the lid was finally popped, and the pent-up frustrations are now spilling out in full force.

Among the most aggrieved groups during Hasina’s tenure were the country’s alem-ulamas – religious scholars and Islam-oriented outfits. In an attempt to placate Western and Indian concerns over Bangladesh’s potential drift toward religious extremism, Hasina ruthlessly suppressed these groups, even allegedly orchestrating false-flag operations to justify brutal crackdowns.

Given this backdrop, the simmering resentment from these once-vocal factions – against both the secular liberal urban elite and the regime that suppressed them – comes as no surprise.

The protests may seem sudden, but they are the result of years of repression, with the current wave reflecting the deep-seated anger that had been long silenced.

Also read: India’s ‘Sheikh Hasina Problem’ is Not Going Away Easily

The secular struggle in Bangladesh

In Bangladesh, the leftist secular society, though representing a small fraction of the population, has long been a strong supporter of the Awami League and its politics.

This alignment is understandable, given the Awami League’s centre-left identity and its historical roots in the more progressive wing of the Muslim League, which split off to form a party focused on a forward-looking vision for the country.

The Liberation War of 1971 further solidified the secular, left-leaning identity of the Awami League. As Pakistan, using Islam as a unifying force between East and West Pakistan, carried out atrocities such as the genocide of March 25, 1971, the East’s push for independence gained momentum.

After liberation, secularism remained a dominant force among the cultural elite, even during the turbulent years following the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the reign of nationalist Ziaur Rahman and the military rule of Hussain Muhammad Ershad, who controversially declared Islam the state religion.

Despite these political shifts, the cultural majority continued to support the Awami League’s vision of Bengali secularism, which helped shape the dominant urban narrative of progress in the country.

However, the issue began to grow as a significant portion of the Muslim-majority population began to feel alienated by this secular narrative, which over time became more of a pseudo-secularism – one that seemed to foster disdain for Islamism rather than promote true secular values.

As the mainstream media and intellectual elite increasingly viewed Islamic identity and practices as backward – and even as a potential threat to societal security – resentment began to grow among the more religiously inclined segments of the population.

This alienation, coupled with the harsh rule of Hasina, exacerbated the discontent.

The July-August uprising, which many have described as a watershed moment for all previously suppressed groups to voice their anger, has brought the rise of Islamist groups to the forefront.

While these groups’ ‘unnecessary interventions’ – such as morally policing book stalls and chanting Islamist slogans in places where they need not – may seem overwhelming to some, particularly in neighbouring India, where successive administrations have tended to back Hasina’s government rather than the will of the Bangladeshi people, this rise in ultra-right-wing activity is often misinterpreted as an Islamist surge.

This is despite the fact that the interim administration, currently led by a secular group of elites, has not embraced this shift.

Western powers, including the US and the EU, have expressed concerns, often through the lens of India’s narrative on Bangladesh.

These external reactions risk misjudging the real dynamics at play in the country: a growing divide between the secular elite and the religiously conservative masses.

Rising concerns over mob justice

The concerns raised by external powers about the increasing presence of Islamist groups in Bangladesh are neither exaggerated nor unfounded.

Inside the country, even the middle class and urban populations have started to express unease over incidents like the recent mob action against the publisher. From an optics standpoint, such events provide little room for the Yunus administration to manoeuvre, leaving it vulnerable to criticism.

This particular incident surrounding the book fair has acted as the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’ for the interim government, patience-wise.

Mahfuj Alam, a key adviser to the administration, posted a stern warning on his verified Facebook page, addressing the “Islamist groups” and urging them to act responsibly – or face severe consequences.

The chief adviser’s office also issued a statement condemning the violence: “The attack shows contempt for both the rights of Bangladeshi citizens and for the laws of our country.”

The statement went on to emphasise that such violence undermines the open-minded spirit of Bangladesh’s cultural heritage, specifically the 1952 Language Movement, which commemorates the martyrs who died defending their mother tongue.

Despite its perceived declining mandate – after initially receiving strong public support – the interim government has rightly condemned the mindless moral policing by Islamist groups, warning that such actions could turn Bangladesh into a geopolitical flashpoint.

It’s undeniable that Hasina’s regime brutally suppressed the ultra-right wing which, though largely harmless and inclined toward ritualistic religious practices, now feels emboldened since the August 5 uprising to voice its grievances.

However, this newfound freedom doesn’t justify the creation of mobs that attempt to dictate the terms of civilian rights, especially in a country with a functioning government.

The interim administration, walking on eggshells, is acutely aware of the delicate balance it must maintain. The last thing it wants is to be seen as a government whose mandate can be undermined by angry mobs.

Faisal Mahmud is the Minister (Press) of the Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi.

Bangladesh’s Security Forces Committed Atrocities With Hasina’s Approval, UN Report Says

The UN human rights office also said that the political vacuum following Hasina’s ouster led to a “broad pattern of violence” against minorities.

New Delhi: In a fact-finding report released on Wednesday (February 12), the United Nations stated that former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and senior political leaders were directly involved in operations that led to serious human rights violations during last year’s student-led protests.

The UN human rights office also stated that the political vacuum following Hasina’s ouster led to a “broad pattern of violence” against minorities.

However, it noted that the motivations were varied, with incidents centring on “religious, ethnic and political biases”.

After weeks of student-led protests, Hasina fled to India on August 5 last year aboard a Bangladeshi military aircraft and has since remained in the Indian capital.

The interim government, led by chief adviser Muhammad Yunus, had requested her extradition, but there has been no progress on the matter.

While unveiling the report in Geneva, UN human rights chief Volker Turk avoided directly addressing whether accountability for Hasina was feasible without her return from India, making no mention of the South Asian country.

Instead, he raised the possibility of referring Hasina for prosecution to the International Criminal Court, but indicated that this would be contingent on universal jurisdiction.

India, however, is not a signatory to the Rome Statute.

“There is also the issue of ensuring that when individuals who have committed serious crimes are outside the country, universal jurisdiction can be applied in those states. Where such jurisdiction is possible for grave violations of international human rights law, it can be part of the accountability process,” he said.

In response to multiple media queries on whether the UN could play a role in bringing Hasina back to Bangladesh, another senior UN official indicated that the world body had little involvement but urged states to cooperate in ensuring accountability.

“The issue of extradition is really a bilateral process, but we hope that states will cooperate and support each other towards this goal of accountability – whether that’s India or other states where people may take refuge,” said Rory Mungoven, head of the Asia-Pacific Division at the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights or OHCHR.

The Bangladesh interim government has welcomed the report by the UN human rights office, which was based on an investigation conducted last September.

A team comprising investigators, a forensic physician and a weapons expert visited Bangladesh following an invitation from the Yunus government to carry out the probe.

The UN report estimated that up to 1,400 people may have been killed between July 1 and August 15, with thousands more injured – most of them shot by Bangladesh’s security forces.

It further indicates that 12-13% of those killed were children.

Bangladesh police reported the deaths of 44 officers.

The report even said that a “significant number of the killings by state security forces and Awami League supporters would amount to the crime against humanity of murder, as set forth in Article 7 of the Rome Statute”.

The report documented cases of sexual violence perpetrated by ruling Awami League supporters and noted that the UN office also received reports of threats of rape and sexual violence committed as “revenge violence” after August 5.

Turk described the Hasina government’s security crackdown as “a calculated and well-coordinated strategy by the former government to hold onto power in the face of mass opposition.”

He added that there were “reasonable grounds to believe hundreds of extrajudicial killings, extensive arbitrary arrests and detentions, and torture were carried out with the knowledge, coordination and direction of the political leadership and senior security officials as part of a strategy to suppress the protests.”

He further stated, “The testimonies and evidence we gathered paint a disturbing picture of rampant state violence and targeted killings, that are amongst the most serious violations of human rights, and which may also constitute international crimes.”

According to him, “accountability and justice are essential for national healing and for the future of Bangladesh.”

The OHCHR collected testimony from senior officials involved in handling the student protests, who stated that the political leadership, including Hasina, directed operations that resulted in human rights violations.

The report cited a senior official’s testimony, stating that “the then-prime minister personally ordered killings when she told senior officials present at a meeting on 19 July to ‘arrest the ringleaders of the protests, the troublemakers, kill them and hide their bodies.’”

It further noted that “in other meetings, she personally discussed the violent clearing of the Dhaka-Chattogram highway with senior security officials.”

Senior officials also told UN investigators that Hasina approved a plan to cover up the arbitrary arrest and detention of student leaders by the Detective Branch and Directorate General of Forces Intelligence.

A day before leaving Dhaka, she chaired a National Security Council meeting in the morning and a second meeting in the evening at her residence.

During these meetings, the prime minister, the home affairs minister and top security officials formulated and agreed on a plan to use force to stop the “March on Dhaka” in August.

The UN report stated, “In pursuance of that plan, police and, in at least one instance, also army personnel fired at protesters in violation of international human rights law and committed extrajudicial killings.”

It found that in some cases, security forces shot and killed unarmed protesters at point-blank range, demonstrating a clear intent to kill.

In many other instances, security personnel fired live rounds from military rifles and automatic pistols at crowds, aiming at the head and torso.

Shotguns loaded with lethal metal pellets were also used at close range, often with multiple shooters firing multiple rounds.

The report noted, “Persons discharging such weapons and their commanders would have been aware that this conduct would result in the death of some members of targeted crowds in the ordinary course of events.”

It emphasised that “in most cases, such killings could find no justification as self-defence or defence of others since the victims were either peaceful protesters, vandals of property, or rioting persons who posed no imminent threat of death or serious injury.”

On the issue of attacks on minorities, the OHCHR reported that it conducted 34 interviews, including with 12 victims of attacks between July 1 and August 15, 2024. It also met with members of several advocacy organisations and civil society groups.

The report noted that “corroborating the true extent of violence against these groups has proven challenging,” particularly as reports from advocacy organisations “often conflict to varying degrees with those of on-the-ground journalists.”

Nevertheless, it stated that “the information provided by interlocutors” “indicates a broad pattern of violence against specific communities rooted in religious, ethnic and political biases, with incidents clustering around themes of property destruction and the suppression of diverse identities.”

The UN report highlighted that “the power vacuum created by the unrest and overrunning of police stations led to increased vulnerabilities for distinct religious and indigenous groups, particularly Hindus, indigenous groups in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, and Ahmadiyya Muslims.”

However, it noted that the motivation behind the attacks was not solely communal. 

“Different and often intersecting motives drove these attacks, ranging from religious and ethnic discrimination to perceived opportunities for revenge against Awami League supporters among minorities, local communal disputes, including about land, and interpersonal issues,” said the report.

The OHCHR also observed that “misinformation has clouded the understanding and context of several incidents, emphasising the importance of verified sources in reporting these events.”

The attacks on minorities, particularly Hindus, after Hasina’s ouster were repeatedly raised by the Indian government.

While the interim administration acknowledged some incidents, it asserted that the issue was exaggerated and accused the Indian media of conducting a systematic misinformation campaign.

How Asma Jahangir Inspires

In a world where divisions often seem insurmountable, stories like Asma’s and the legacy of shared cultural values remind us that the fight for justice is not about borders, but about humanity.

Growing up in Gorakhpur, a city that has become synonymous with the rise of Hindutva politics and the political ascendancy of Uttar Pradesh chief minister Adityanath, I never imagined how a film, Veer-Zaara, would shape my worldview and spark the passions that drive me today. Released at the turn of the century, Veer-Zaara became a cult classic ad deeply ingrained itself in the hearts of many in my generation. While many remember the film for its romantic narrative – a grand love story of sacrifice – it made a lasting impact on me thanks to its depiction of Samia Siddiqui, a human rights lawyer who, much like Asma Jahangir, fights for justice and freedom in the name of human dignity. 

I have rewatched Veer-Zaara at almost every stage of life. But it wasn’t until later, during my law studies, that I probably started relating profoundly with its themes of love, human rights and justice. As a law student at Delhi University surrounded by Hindutva student groups, I was perturbed by questions of where my life was headed. In that vacuum, I found myself drawn to the theatre.  I began working as an actor with one of Delhi’s largest theatre groups – an experience reminiscent of Asma Jahangir’s own brief stint with acting, which she shared in her 2018 BBC interview The Life and Loves of Asma Jahangir. It was in that same year, 2018, that Asma passed away at the age of 66. The tributes opened up the stories of her life to me and I began to appreciate her legacy and its connection to the work that I wanted to pursue. 

I fondly remember the opening scene of Veer-Zaara, in which Samia Siddiqui passionately declares, “Azadi har kisi ka paidaishi haq hota hai aur ye haq dilana mera kaam hai (Freedom is every person’s birthright, and it is my job to ensure they get it).” Little did I know at that point that the quote shall become the cornerstone of my participation in the world of human rights. As I ventured further into human rights law, especially in the field of prisoners’ rights, I could not ignore how my own journey began to mirror the struggles Samia Siddiqui faced in the film.

The poster of ‘Veer-Zara’.

Asma’s tireless work as a lawyer and activist must have had an impact on so many young minds like me. Her determination to provide legal aid to marginalised communities, her fearless pursuit of justice even at the risk of her own safety, and her unrelenting efforts to bring peace to South Asia made her a global symbol for human rights. I came to understand that Asma’s legacy was not just about the battles she fought for individual clients but the broader fight she waged for justice, freedom, and human dignity – values I shared.

One of the most striking aspects of Asma Jahangir’s work was how she seamlessly integrated patriotism with human rights. Her deep sense of justice was rooted in her love for her country, yet her fight transcended borders. As a staunch proponent of peace between India and Pakistan, Asma dedicated herself to bridging the chasm of hatred that divided the two nations, constantly advocating for human rights regardless of nationality or religion. This blend of patriotism and human rights advocacy felt both radical and necessary, especially in the current climate where human rights defenders in India are often labeled as “anti-national” simply for speaking out against injustice. 

The lessons from Asma’s life have continued to inspire me, especially as I reflect on how human rights work is often marginalised or vilified in today’s political climate. It’s all too easy for governments to frame defenders of human rights as enemies of the state. Yet, Asma’s legacy demonstrates how deeply interwoven the struggles for human rights and nationalism can be – how love for one’s country does not have to mean blind allegiance to oppressive forces, but rather a commitment to improving it for the betterment of all. 

Asma Jahangir (1952-2018). Photo: Wikipedia/CC BY 2.0.

I find myself thinking often of another figure who carries forward Asma’s legacy – Nandita Haksar, an Indian lawyer and human rights campaigner whose work similarly fuses the essence of nationalism with human rights. Much like Asma, Nandita believes that the emancipation of marginalised people – whether they are part of the working class, religious minorities, or political dissenters – can only be achieved through solidarity and collective struggle. Her activism, grounded in both Indian nationalism and principles of internationalist struggles and global solidarity , shows us that the fight against fascism and for human rights is not limited to one country or one struggle but is a shared, global fight for justice. 

When I think back on my journey, the connection between the fictional world of Veer-Zaara and my own path as a prisoners’ rights lawyer is poignant. Both worlds speak of love, sacrifice, and the unwavering commitment to justice. But beyond the surface, there is a deeper, more profound message – the shared struggles of women, the fight for freedom, and the common values that unite people across borders, cultures, and histories. 

Asma Jahangir’s life may have ended, but her work and spirit continue to guide those of us who have pledged to carry the baton of human rights forward. Her influence is part of the broader, shared cultural values that have long connected India and Pakistan – values of secularism, equality, and justice. In this way, Asma’s life and work are not just a tribute to one woman’s extraordinary courage, but a call to all of us to carry on her fight, in whatever way we can, for the betterment of our communities, countries, and the world. 

In a world where divisions often seem insurmountable, stories like Asma’s and the legacy of shared cultural values remind us that the fight for justice is not about borders, but about humanity. And it’s this fight that continues to inspire me as I work to defend the rights of prisoners, just as Asma Jahangir fought for the voiceless in the past era.

Vertika Mani is a human rights lawyer and activist working with Defenders Bureau on prisoners rights at Supreme Court, currently serving as Secretary, People’s Union for Civil Liberties, Delhi.

Why Are Pakistani Journalists Protesting an Amendment to the Controversial ‘PECA’ Law?

Among other things, the new PECA makes spreading information that is ‘believed to be fake’ a cognisable offence and provides for up to three years in jail.

Journalists and human right activists in Pakistan are protesting the introduction of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA), 2025 and calling it a “black” law that curbs media freedom.

The law has also raised eyebrows among human rights organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, who have expressed concerns over journalists’ safety and freedom of speech in the country.

The law, enacted on January 29, is an amendment to the existing and controversial PECA, 2016.

It has been challenged in the country’s Supreme Court on the grounds that it could enable censorship by the government. Petitioners are also mounting challenges against PECA in Pakistan’s high courts. One of these, involving the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party of Imran Khan, is pending before the Lahore high court.

What is PECA?

PECA was originally passed by the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) (PML-N) government in August 2016. Even back then, it had sparked a media outcry and was labelled as a move to silence critics of the government.

The country’s president Asif Ali Zardari signed the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Bill 2025, which will set up four new authorities that will regulate offensive and unlawful content online.

The amendment also broadens the definition of ‘complainant’ to anyone who believes a crime is committed.

It makes spreading information that is ‘believed to be fake’ a cognisable offence – where the cops will not need a warrant to arrest accused persons – and anyone found guilty of it could be sentenced to prison for up to three years, Dawn reported.

One of the four new authorities provided for by PECA is the Social Media Protection and Regulatory Authority (SMPRA), which is to regulate unlawful content on social media and hear complaints regarding PECA violations among other things.

Its members are to be appointed by the federal government and the body will be bound by law to follow the government’s requests to block content.

Appeals against the SMPRA’s decisions may be placed before the Social Media Protection Tribunal – another of the four authorities under the PECA – and decisions handed out by this tribunal in turn can be challenged only in the Supreme Court, which lawyers and journalists have noted would force petitioners onto a less accessible route for legal challenges and would diminish judicial oversight.

Human Rights Watch noted that the amendment does not clarify what “fake or false” news is and uses vague and overbroad language.

Iqra Hussain, news editor of a website based in Islamabad, said the broad powers given to regulatory authorities through PECA, 2025 may create opportunities for misuse and silence criticism, investigative journalism or opposing views.

“If a journalist highlights a security failure after an incident, will it be seen as stirring public emotions against national security?” Hussain asked.

Journalists across the country have protested the law since January 29 and observed ‘Black Day’ earlier this month by wearing black armbands.

What have the government and journalists said?

The government maintains that the law is aimed to curb the misuse of social media and asked all media bodies to support it.

Ataullah Tarar, Pakistan’s information and broadcasting minister, defended the law saying that unlike print and electronic media, digital platforms do not have regulations or editorial checks in place to filter content.

He also said that digital media has provided space for child pornography, deepfake videos and the harassment of women.

Tarar said that people who did not have a journalism degree or report from the field for a day can turn on their cameras and say anything to harm the country. “Where have you got this content from? … Do you have skills? Or have a PhD from a university?”

An example of social media content that could come under threat from the new PECA is videos made by self-exiled journalist Imran Riaz Khan, who has over 5.6 million subscribers on his YouTube channel and is seen as a critic of the current PML-N government.

Asma Shirazi, a prominent journalist of the country, said, “As a journalist, I’m worried that these amendments will further restrict our ability to report freely and hold those in power accountable.”

She also raised concerns over the hastiness with which the Bill was passed and said that “such significant changes to laws regulating online speech and media should be thoroughly debated, consulted upon and scrutinised”.

“Everyone knows that the real purpose of this law is to silence those who do political and journalistic criticism of the government,” said news anchor Hamid Mir on his television show in Geo News.

Mir pointed out that the ruling party led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif that has passed the new amendment was against similar amendments proposed by the then-PTI government when it (the PML-N) was in the opposition in 2022.

Leader of opposition Shibli Faraz from Imran Khan’s PTI said that the law will strengthen the government’s ability to politically victimise its opponents and that anyone can be arrested under it.

He reiterated that journalists were protesting because of their profession and not for any political party.

Old tricks, new name?

One of the first arrests under the PECA, 2016 was of Zafarullah Achakzai, a reporter based in Quetta, for spreading “misinformation” against law enforcement agencies on social media.

Achakzai had criticised security forces in his Facebook posts.

He was later acquitted in 2019 for lack of evidence, but incidents like this threaten other journalists about what may happen to them if their reportage does not show the army in a good light.

On January 28, when the Bill was approved in the senate, the upper house of Pakistan’s parliament, president of the Awami National Party Aimal Wali Khan walked out in protest, saying the Bill smelled of “of boots and uniform”.

Reporters without Borders ranked Pakistan 152 out of 180 countries in the 2024 Press Freedom Index.

“Any journalist who crosses the red lines dictated by Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) – the military’s media wing – is at risk of being the target of in-depth surveillance that can lead to abduction and detention for varying lengths of time in the state’s prisons or less official jails,” its website says about Pakistan.

Imran Ali Khan, a journalist based in Multan in Punjab province, said Pakistan has never enjoyed freedom of speech, “with invisible forces constantly undermining journalistic independence in an attempt to push their own agenda”.

Khan cited the example of Geo News’s Hamid Mir, who “dare[s] to speak the truth” and survived an assassination attempt in 2014.

Democracy in dilemma?

Khan said it is ironic that the legislation was enacted in a supposedly democratic era.

“During the PTI government, journalists were openly threatened by then-director general ISPR Major General Asim Ghafoor, who instructed them to report only ‘positively’ to maintain stability and avoid spreading chaos. Media houses were pressured to fire journalists and critical voices were systematically silenced.

“Historically, such restrictive laws have been imposed under martial law regimes, but the irony is that this legislation has been enacted during a supposedly democratic era.”

Khan lamented how the PML-N, which he said claims to be a champion of democracy, was involved in passing an “authoritarian law” like the amendment to the PECA.

“It could discourage journalists and citizens from sharing information or questioning those in power”, Iqra Hussain said.

Local journalists from tribal and remote areas who work in challenging environments in the country can also become isolated, she added.

Social media is the primary source of news in the tribal and remote areas of Pakistan, such as Balochistan, which barely get mainstream media coverage.

“How can local journalists provide news from reliable sources if they fear government punishment? This fear could lead to incidents going unreported. How will we know what is happening in tribal areas if journalists are silenced?” she asked.

Sumaiya Ali is an independent journalist based in India. She reports on human and minority rights in South Asia. Ali has previous work experience in media research, specifically in Pakistan.

India Summons Bangladesh Envoy, Says Hasina’s Remarks Made In Her ‘Individual Capacity’

New Delhi also chafed that Bangladeshi officials make “regular statements” holding India responsible for “internal governance issues”.

New Delhi: India had no role to play in an address delivered by Sheikh Hasina that sparked violent protests in Bangladesh, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said, accusing Dhaka of blaming its “internal governance issues” on India.

The MEA conveyed this to Bangladesh’s acting high commissioner Md. Nural Islam, whom it summoned on Friday (January 7) afternoon.

Protesters in Bangladesh on Wednesday night burned and partially demolished the erstwhile home of independence leader and statesman Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in response to an address delivered by ousted premier Sheikh Hasina, who is also Rahman’s daughter, to her supporters.

The attack on the property was followed by leaders of Hasina’s Awami League party being targeted in around 20 districts in the country, the Daily Star reported. Bangladesh’s interim adviser Muhammad Yunus has appealed to his citizens to maintain peace.

In its statement, the MEA also said that Hasina on Wednesday made her remarks “in her individual capacity” and that conflating them for the Indian government’s views was “not going to help add positivity to bilateral relations”.

Instead, New Delhi chafed that officials of Yunus’s interim government make “regular statements” that “portray India negatively, holding us responsible for internal governance issues”.

“These statements by Bangladesh are in fact responsible for the persistent negativity,” the MEA continued.

A day earlier, Bangladesh’s foreign ministry had summoned the Indian acting high commissioner and lodged its strong protest over Hasina’s “false and fabricated comments and statements”.

“… The ministry conveyed the deep concern, disappointment and serious reservation of the government of Bangladesh, as such statements are hurting the sentiments of the people in Bangladesh,” Dhaka said, adding that it considered Hasina’s address an example of a “hostile act towards Bangladesh”.

Dhaka asked New Delhi to take steps to prevent Hasina from publicly making “false, fabricated and incendiary statements” while in India, to where she fled a bloody student-led uprising in August.

On Wednesday night, protesters took hammers and shovels to Rahman’s residence before Hasina’s speech began and later set it on fire, even as security personnel were present in the vicinity from the start, the Star had reported.

A bulldozer also arrived at the scene a little before midnight.

Among the attacks that followed on Awami League leaders was one on the home of a former president.

Yunus on Friday called on citizens to “immediately restore complete law and order and to ensure there will be no further attacks on properties” associated with Hasina’s family or with leaders of the “fascist” Awami League.

The MEA had called Rahman a “symbol of the heroic resistance” Bangladesh’s people displayed during independence from Pakistan and said the damaging of his residence “should be strongly condemned”.

Hasina for her part suggested in her address to her supporters that the house could be rebuilt and said her country was ceding space to “terrorists and militants”, The Hindu quoted her as saying.

Terming Yunus’s government “unconstitutional” and accusing him of attempting to kill her, Hasina also said she believed she had survived numerous assassination attempts “because I have to complete some special assignment in the coming days”, the newspaper reported.

Yunus’s government has sought Hasina’s extradition to Bangladesh, where the Dhaka-based International Crimes Tribunal has issued warrants for her arrest on allegations of human rights violations during the July-August crackdown on the student-led uprising.

Her presence in India has added another layer of friction to relations between the two countries, as it is seen in Bangladesh as indicative of New Delhi’s uncritical support for the Awami League government over its decade-and-a-half rule led by Hasina.

The interim adviser has previously said that Hasina ought to remain “quiet” while in India.