The brutal lynching and public immolation of Dipu Chandra Das, a Hindu garment factory worker in Bangladesh, has become a chilling symbol of the deepening crisis faced by religious minorities in the country. While much of the global media and Indian cultural elite responded with silence or evasive framing, Bollywood actress Janhvi Kapoor broke ranks, calling the murder “barbaric,” “genocidal,” and emblematic of a moral collapse enabled by selective outrage.
Her condemnation has ignited a wider debate not just about Islamist violence against Hindus in Bangladesh, but also about the hypocrisy of celebrities, influencers, and Western media institutions that claim moral authority while consistently downplaying or reframing atrocities when Hindus are the victims.
In comparison, several other Bollywood celebrities and A-listers have been vocal on social media in condemning the Israeli airstrike in Gaza, which killed 45 people in a tent camp in Rafah, but have remained silent on the Bangladesh killing.
Celebrities such as Priyanka Chopra Jonas, Alia Bhatt, Kareena Kapoor Khan, Varun Dhawan, Sonam Kapoor, rapper Honey Singh, and Madhuri Dixit Nene, among others, expressed solidarity with Gaza and criticised Israel’s actions, yet did not issue any statements on the targeted killing of a Hindu youth in Bangladesh.
On the night of December 18, in Bhaluka Upazila of Mymensingh district, Dipu Chandra Das, a Hindu man in his thirties employed at a garment factory, was accused by Muslim co-workers of committing blasphemy. His alleged offence was neither violent nor provocative: during a workplace discussion, Das reportedly remarked that all religions contain superstitions, a comment that angered Islamist colleagues who claimed it insulted Prophet Muhammad.
A mob descended on Das around 9 pm, beating him mercilessly. His battered body was then tied to a tree and set on fire while he was either dead or dying, as bystanders filmed the spectacle. Videos that later went viral showed members of the mob chanting Islamic slogans and proudly recording the killing on their mobile phones there was no fear, no secrecy, and no remorse.
Bangladesh police confirmed the incident. Duty Officer Ripon Mia of Bhaluka Police Station acknowledged that Das was attacked following blasphemy allegations and that his body was later sent to Mymensingh Medical College Hospital for post-mortem examination.
Dipu Chandra Das was not a political figure, not an activist, not affiliated with any ideological group. He was a poor Hindu factory worker whose only misfortune was being born into a religious minority in a country where blasphemy accusations have increasingly become death sentences.
As horrifying visuals circulated online, most of Bollywood remained conspicuously quiet. Then Janhvi Kapoor posted a strongly worded Instagram story that stood out precisely because it refused to dilute the truth.
Calling the lynching “barbaric” and “a genocide,” Kapoor urged people to confront the reality of what was happening in Bangladesh instead of indulging in moral posturing.
“What is happening in Bangladesh is barbaric. It is a genocide, and this is not an isolated incident. If you are unaware of this inhumane public lynching, please read about it, watch the videos, ask questions,” she wrote.
She went further, directly calling out selective outrage, “We will continue to cry over things happening on the other side of the world while our own brothers and sisters are being burned alive. Extremism in any form must be condemned and eradicated before we lose our humanity.”
In an industry where statements are often carefully calibrated to avoid discomfort, Kapoor’s words were unusually blunt. She explicitly rejected the idea that geography or ideology should determine empathy and warned that hypocrisy itself is destructive.
Within hours of Kapoor’s post gaining attention, YouTuber Dhruv Rathee shared an Instagram story promoting a video titled “Dark Side of Beauty,” featuring Janhvi Kapoor prominently in its thumbnail. The timing sparked immediate backlash.
Many users accused Rathee of attempting to divert attention from Kapoor’s condemnation of Islamist violence against Hindus by pushing unrelated content that portrayed her negatively or frivolously. Notably, Rathee has not directly addressed the lynching of Dipu Chandra Das.
The episode reinforced a growing perception that certain influencers are quick to amplify narratives that fit ideological comfort zones, but reluctant to confront Islamist violence especially when Hindus are the victims.
Following the removal of Sheikh Hasina from power and her subsequent flight from Bangladesh, the country has been gripped by instability. Islamist groups have exploited the political vacuum, leading to a sharp rise in attacks on minorities particularly Hindus.
The situation deteriorated further after the death of Sharif Osman Hadi, an openly anti-India Islamist activist, who was shot on December 12 and died on December 18 in Singapore. In the aftermath, extremist mobs targeted Hindu neighbourhoods, temples, media houses, diplomats, and even the Indian embassy.
Bangladesh’s Hindu population has been steadily shrinking from about 22 per cent at independence to roughly 8 per cent today a demographic collapse driven by decades of violence, forced conversions, land seizures, temple destruction, and abuse of blasphemy laws.
Dipu Chandra Das is not an exception. He is part of a pattern.
While social media users shared videos of the lynching in horror, most Western media outlets maintained a deafening silence. There was no urgent coverage, no banner headlines, no breathless commentary on human rights. Days later, The New York Times finally acknowledged the killing but the manner of reporting drew intense criticism.
Headlined “Lynching of a Hindu in Bangladesh Fans Fears of Rising Intolerance,” the article reframed Das’s murder as part of an abstract “regional pattern of intolerance in South Asia.” The Islamist mob was not clearly named. The religious motivation was softened. Responsibility was diffused.
Instead of centring the victim and the perpetrators, the report emphasised leadership vacuum, rumours, political instability, and “extremist forces” everything except the obvious fact that a Hindu man was lynched by Muslims chanting religious slogans.
In a classic exercise of both-sides-ism, the article dragged India into the narrative, citing alleged Hindu attacks on Muslims, while omitting or downplaying numerous well-documented cases of Islamist violence against Hindus in India, including lynchings accompanied by “Sar Tan Se Juda” and “Allahu Akbar” slogans.
