Double Standards of The Economist Exposed
It has been called as the joke of the year. An article in the Economist, the European magazine announces the country of the year every year. This year it decided to name strife torn, Islamist run Bangladesh as the country of the year.
The Economist while announcing Bangladesh as the country of the year said that it picks what they consider as the most improved nation. It also said that the decision is not based on how the country is performing on the parameters of wealth and happiness.
The decision was based on the fact that the people of the country had toppled an authoritarian regime. While the people did topple the Sheikh Hasina regime, the chaos it led to is something that the Economist has not taken into account.
Meaningless analysis
The entire emphasis has been on the fact that an authoritarian regime had been toppled. It also took note of the fact that following the ouster of Sheikh Hasina, the country transitioned towards a technocratic interim government that is led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus.
It also claimed that the ouster of Hasina led to the restoration of order and brought in economic stability. The Economist however did not take note of the fact that thousands of minorities especially the Hindus have been persecuted since the ouster of Sheikh Hasina. The fact that Bangladesh has requested Bharat for 50,000 tonnes of rice has not been taken into account.
The Economist is also silent about Bangladesh defaulting on pending electricity bills which have to be paid to the Adani Group. Many countries have stopped doing business with Bangladesh owing to the chaos and this has left the much prided textile industry of the country in shambles.
If all this is a sign of progress, then the Economist has got its choice wrong in every possible way.
Silent on the Hindu program
The Muhammad Yunus government has not just allowed the persecution of Hindus but has institutionalised it as well. Hindu Temples have been desecrated and thousands of Hindus have been rendered homeless. Many have been raped, forcibly married off and raped. There is documented evidence of this and the Economist is silent about it.
The data provided by the Ministry of External Affairs shows that in 2024 the number of attacks on the minorities in Bangladesh increased by 628 per cent when compared to 2023. While the number of attacks were at 302 in 2023, the following year the number of such incidents went up to 2,200. This is a clear sign that since ouster of the so called authoritarian government as dubbed by the Economist the number of attacks on minorities has risen sharply.
The Economist is also silent on the atrocities committed on ISKCON. The arrest of Hindu leader Chinmoy Krishna Das clearly show the bias Bangladesh has against the Hindus.
A clear bias
The bias by the Economist is nothing new. The bias has increased against the Hindus and the Indian government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The Economist has always portrayed Hindu nationalism as extremism
Without any clear argument, the Economist put out an article titled, ‘What is Hindutva, the ideology of India’s ruling party.’ The article said that Hindutva is a tool for the Indian government to marginalise the minorities. The same does apply when it comes to Bangladesh.
What the Economist fails to get is the real meaning of Hindutva, the cultural philosophy and historical context. The main argument is that Hindutva has become a tool for Narendra Modi to marginalise minorities in India.
Not just the Economist, the BBC has also downplayed the atrocities against the Hindus in Bangladesh. It has dubbed it as political violence failing to understand that it is text book what the radical Islamists really want and that is the ethnic cleansing of Hindus.
The Economist’s questionable choices
The Economist’s decision not just rakes off bias but also plays into the hands of the deep state which had orchestrated the downfall of Hasina and placed its puppet Yunus in charge.
Many have questioned as to how exactly does the overthrowing of a democratically elected government earn a country the best country award. Bangladesh has descended into chaos since the fall of Sheikh Hasina. Leaders like Donald Trump have recognised the atrocities being committed in Bangladesh and has also warned of stern action once he takes office on January 20 2025. Recently US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan reprimanded Yunus on his handling of the atrocities against the minorities. The Economist has however had selective amnesia while making its choice.
The Economist has an interesting track record when it comes to deciding the country of the year. All countries that it has named in recent years have all descended into chaos. In 2014 the choice was Tunisia while in 2015 it named Myanmar. IN 2016 the choice was Colombia while in 2017 it was France.
In 2018 the choice was Armenia while in 2022 Ukraine made it to the top list. It is a well-known fact how chaos has descended upon all these countries. The case of Bangladesh is no different.
In Tunisia Mohamed Brahmi was assassinated which led to widespread protests and political instability. In Myanmar the Rohingya crisis escalated and there has been widespread violence and displacement of humans. Armenia witnessed a Velvet Revolution leading to the resignation of Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan and this marked a political transition. Ukraine on the other hand has defended into crisis due to the Russia war. Volodymyr Zelensky was clearly played by the West which angered the Russians and eventually a war broke out. Ukraine is today in shambles and many would say beyond repair.
Leave a Comment