THE sense of complacency that a government press release regarding communal violence in 2025 appears to carry undermines the sense of insecurity that various minority groups feel. The government claims that most of the incidents of violence involving minority communities in 2025 were not communal but criminal in nature. Investigating 645 reported incidents, the government found only 71, roughly 1 in 11, possessed communal elements. The assessment categorises the remaining 574 cases as non-communal, attributing them to land disputes, theft or personal enmities. While this is true that there are many incidents that are but criminal in nature, what the government assessment misses is that communal violence and tension is a much more layered and sensitive issue. The assessment, with its statistical reductionism, thus, sanitises the profound social friction minorities face daily. The Bangladesh Hindu Buddhist Christian Unity Council has dismissed the findings as ‘confusing and untrue,’ citing 114 instances of temple vandalism against the government’s count of 38. The number of cases and arrests also show that the response to even the ‘communal’ incidents of violence was very inadequate. Of the 71 ‘communal’ incidents, including temple arson and murder, only 50 cases were filed and 50 arrests were made.
The government’s insistence on grounding the public discussion on communal violence in facts rather than fear appears, in practice, to be an exercise in administrative obfuscation. By categorising 58 rapes and 23 land disputes as purely criminal, the authorities ignore how minority status often makes individuals more vulnerable to such crimes. In many instances, what begins as a neighbourhood or land-related dispute is exacerbated by the victim’s religious identity, yet the official record strips away this context to maintain a narrative of national harmony. The dismissal, for example, of 172 unnatural deaths and dozens of rapes as non-communal, ignores the possible and inherent communal undertones in the incidents. This is true that communal violence has received an exaggerated and often distorted attention from certain quarters, including the Indian media, which want to portray a sharp and dangerous decline in communal harmony in Bangladesh under the interim government. This is also true that the authorities have failed to adequately respond to incidents of communal and sectarian violence. Until the authorities adopt a more nuanced understanding of how religious identity intersects with criminal victimisation, any classification risks simplifying and sanitising the sufferings and grievances of the minorities.
Taking the fragility and sensitivity of the issue into account, the authorities should, therefore, adopt a more nuanced and sensitive approach to incidents of violence involving members or properties of minority communities. While an independent investigation of the incidents is, therefore, warranted, the authorities must acknowledge the specific vulnerability that minorities feel and address their grievances accordingly to ensure genuine communal harmony.
