Rushad Faridi 
One of the few comments on international affairs that Donald Trump made in the run up to the voting that saw him get re-elected as President of the United States was a post on X condemning the “barbaric attacks” on minorities in Bangladesh.
His post presents Muslim-majority Bangladesh as a serious threat to its Hindu minority. Trump’s world view has always been narrow, shaped not by knowledge or diplomacy but by a basic playbook focused on inciting his base. He doesn’t know the intricacies of Bangladesh, nor does he care. His interest in international affairs was limited to anything that could help his campaign or rile up his voter base.
His aim in posting this was to stir anti-Muslim sentiment among Hindu Americans and drive them towards his ticket.
This approach was in line with his primary strategy of playing to the biases of his supporters – often, those Americans who have been left behind by political and economic shifts and who are more susceptible to messages of fear regarding immigration, job loss and foreign threats. His support base, often less exposed to international issues, is easy to influence with such narratives, particularly when it comes to casting foreign nations and communities in a negative light.
However, his recent post about Bangladesh went further. Only a handful of words addressed Bangladesh directly, while the bulk of the message was a baseless attack on the Democrats and outgoing vice-president Kamala Harris, labelling them as “anti-Hindu.” In parroting the recent anti-Bangladesh narrative being pushed by some sections of the Indian media, Trump is merely recycling the misinformation put forward by India after the abrupt end of Sheikh Hasina’s 15-year tyrannical rule on August 5, 2024 by the student-led uprising.
The Indian media was happy to go along with this narrative because the landscape has increasingly been monopolised by the Modi administration’s authoritarianism over the past decade. Media outlets that haven’t fallen in line with Modi’s narrative have either faced suppression or, in some cases, been taken over by allies of the government. Consequently, much of the information emerging from India’s media apparatus today reflects the interests of the Modi regime.
Also read: India’s ‘Sheikh Hasina Problem’ is Not Going Away Easily
To fully grasp this dynamic, one must understand the depth of the India-Bangladesh relationship under Hasina. Her government was seen by ordinary Bangladeshis as a “pet project” of the Indian deep state no matter which political party is in power. Since her election in 2008, Hasina prioritised India’s strategic and security concerns, and in exchange, India provided international legitimacy for her increasingly autocratic rule, overlooking the rampant corruption, human rights abuses, and political repression that characterised her administration.
The Modi administration’s preference for Hasina rested on her allegiance to India’s geopolitical interests. Her government served as a critical political ally for India, wile also providing secure corridors and ports at nominal cost. But her ouster this August marked a turning point, one that the Indian establishment was totally unprepared for. Her departure, therefore, left a void that India is eager to fill by portraying Bangladesh’s new government, led by Nobel laureate Mohammad Yunus, the most widely known Bangladeshi around the world, as dangerously aligned with Islamist extremism.
To be clear, Bangladesh is probably not a utopia when it comes to communal harmony but it is no hell-hole either. There have been sporadic instances of violence against minorities, but these cases are rarely the result of communal hatred. Often, they stem from personal rivalries or land disputes. After Hasina fled the country, unruly mobs attacked different police stations as they saw how members of the police force brutally murdered innocent protesters. During those few days, in the absence of security, some incidents of violence against minorities indeed occurred. But it is worth noting that many communities also displayed solidarity, with Muslim volunteers standing guard to protect Hindu neighbourhoods from these opportunistic attacks.
Moreover, in comparison to India, Bangladesh remains a relatively safe place for minorities. Under Modi’s regime, India has seen an escalation in state-sanctioned minority discrimination, with frequent incidents of anti-Muslim violence and communal rhetoric. Modi himself, infamous for his role in the 2002 Gujarat riots, has fostered an environment where intolerance flourishes. The approach Trump uses to pander to white supremacists and anti-immigration hardliners has been deployed by Modi to radicalise Hindu nationalism.
In truth, India’s attempt to deflect attention away from its own persecution of minorities by labelling Bangladesh “unsafe” for minorities reeks of hypocrisy. India’s sheer size and media reach allow it to drown out dissenting voices and manipulate the narrative. So, when these narratives reach someone like Trump, who rarely verifies his sources, he seizes upon them without hesitation if they serve his ends. Trump’s gratuitous claims about Bangladesh were a shameless ploy to energise Hindu-American voters, a group whose support he has courted since his last term.
Trump’s targeting of Bangladesh is dangerous. It could fuel unnecessary fear, deepen existing divides, and erode the sense of community among Americans of South Asian heritage.
Rushad Faridi is an Assistant Professor of Economics at the University of Dhaka.
This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.