Shawdesh desk:

The interim government on Thursday said that the USCIRF’s portrayal of the religious freedom situation in Bangladesh was based on misinformation and selective reporting.

‘The interim government is not responsible for the violence alleged, and the police investigations show that the incidents cited are unrelated to religious hatred,’ said the chief adviser’s press wing in a statement.

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom released its 2025 Annual Report on March 25.

The report documents religious freedom conditions in 2024 and recommends policy to the White House, Congress and State Department to advance freedom of religion or belief abroad.

Congress mandated USCIRF’s annual report in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. ‘It is simply not true that the interim Government of Bangladesh is responsible for the violence alleged in the USCIRF report,’ the statement, shared by press secretary Shafiqul Alam, reads.

The assertion that the violence occurred following the removal of prime minister Sheikh Hasina is misleading and lacks solid evidence.

Despite the challenges faced during this period, the interim government expressed a clear commitment to protecting all minority communities, said the statement.

This stance was evident in their public statements and efforts to mitigate any harm to vulnerable groups, it mentioned.

‘However, the USCIRF report omits these positive steps and instead focuses on a narrative of worsening religious freedom, which does not align with the actual situation on the ground,’ the statement reads.

There is no credible evidence supporting the claim that the Interim Government, led by Professor Muhammad Yunus, is responsible for violence targeting religious minorities. The Bangladesh Police have thoroughly investigated the incidents claimed by the Bangladesh Hindu Buddha Christian Unity Council.

Their investigations have revealed that the majority of reported deaths were not the result of communal violence or religious hatred but rather stemmed from personal disputes, accidents, property conflicts, and even suicides. These incidents were not based on religious motives but on other socio-economic or personal factors.

The claim that hundreds of Hindus were killed due to religious violence following prime minister Hasina’s departure is simply false. Since Hasina’s removal, almost no Hindus-or any other religious communities-have been killed in attacks driven by communal violence.

This type of violence, which the report mentions, has not been substantiated by any reliable evidence. In fact, Bangladesh has witnessed a period of relative calm for religious minorities, contrary to the narrative suggested in the USCIRF report.

The Bangladesh Police have investigated the claims made by religious minority groups, such as the Bangladesh Hindu Buddha Christian Unity Council, and found only a handful of cases of organised, communal violence or hate crimes against religious groups.

The nature of the deaths cited in the report was due to personal or familial reasons, not religious animus. The fact that these investigations are ignored in the USCIRF report only raises questions about the thoroughness and fairness of their research.

The report mentions the proliferation of false claims through traditional and social media following the violent protests. However, it is critical to note that these media sources, often driven by political agendas, have spread misinformation aimed at discrediting the interim government.

The USCIRF should have conducted independent investigations, rather than relying on potentially biased sources that spread disinformation.

If USCIRF truly operates as an independent, bipartisan organisation, it is disappointing that it did not carry out its own investigations into these events. Instead, it appears to have relied on unfounded claims and one-sided narratives, which serve only to taint Bangladesh’s reputation unfairly.

Had the USCIRF done its due diligence, it would have recognised that the situation in Bangladesh is not as dire as the report suggests, particularly regarding religious violence.

The political unrest in Bangladesh, including protests and clashes between political factions, has sometimes been misrepresented as religious violence. While there may have been tensions involving religious groups, it is essential to understand that these incidents were primarily linked to political affiliation rather than religious persecution. This distinction is critical in understanding the situation accurately and avoiding the oversimplification of complex political events as religious conflicts.’