The recent deaths of two Bangladeshi citizens, Dipu Chandra Das and Osman Hadi, have highlighted a troubling bias in the way Western countries react to incidents of violence. While the killing of Osman Hadi received international attention and condemnation, the brutal lynching of Dipu Chandra Das passed almost unnoticed outside India. This unequal response exposes a selective approach by Western media and governments, which often protest only within their comfort zones or when it fits their narrative.
Dipu Chandra Das was a 27-year-old Hindu factory worker in Mymensingh, Bangladesh. On December 18, 2025, he was handed over by his factory supervisors to a mob that accused him of blasphemy. The mob beat him to death, tied his naked body to a tree, and set it on fire. The horrifying attack happened in full public view, and hundreds of people recorded videos of the lynching. Das was a college graduate, married for three years, and had a 1.5-year-old daughter. Despite the sheer brutality, the world largely remained silent, except for India, which protested the attack.
Osman Hadi, by contrast, was a well-known activist and a spokesperson for the radical group Inquilab Mancha. Hadi had gained prominence during protests against the Sheikh Hasina government in 2024. On December 18, he was shot in the head by masked gunmen in Dhaka and later died in Singapore. Hadi’s death received widespread attention from Western countries, including the United States and members of the European Union, with official statements and even lowering of national flags to half-mast in Bangladesh.
The reaction to the two deaths shows that Western nations and media often decide whose suffering is worthy of attention. Osman Hadi’s killing was mourned globally, despite his association with a radical Islamist organization. Dipu Chandra Das’s lynching, in contrast, was largely ignored, even though it involved extreme violence against a minority community in Bangladesh. The New York Times was one of the few outlets to report on Das’s killing, but even then, it presented the incident in a diluted form. The report described it as “part of a wider pattern of religious intolerance in South Asia,” and suggested that attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh should be balanced with attacks on Muslims in India.
This kind of reporting conflates issues and misses the point: every act of communal violence, regardless of the victim’s religion or nationality, should be condemned. Yet, many Western countries remain silent when the victims do not fit their preferred narrative or agenda. For example, human rights-focused governments in Europe and the US condemned Hadi’s murder but said little about Das’s death, despite the public and barbaric nature of the lynching. Former Indian diplomat Kanwal Sibal called this “diplomatically unusual” and pointed out that Hadi had links to Islamist groups, yet his death was given exceptional political prominence.
ALSO READ: Why your air fryer might be working against your health, Mumbai doctor explains
ALSO READ: Bird flu outbreak in Kerala: Causes, risks, symptoms, treatment and what you need to know
Western hypocrisy becomes clearer when comparing responses to different regimes in Bangladesh. Sheikh Hasina’s government was frequently criticized by Western countries for authoritarian practices. However, under Muhammad Yunus, attacks on minorities and political killings have increased, yet Western nations have largely remained silent. Hindus in Bangladesh have faced systematic persecution for decades, and many have fled their ancestral homes in search of safety in India. European countries, while focused on issues like Rohingya rights, have ignored ongoing violence against Hindus, showing selective concern for human rights.
The lynching of Dipu Chandra Das is not an isolated incident. Attacks on minorities, including Hindus, Christians, and other vulnerable communities, are frequent in Bangladesh. The mob’s behavior, combined with public indifference and even participation, reflects deep social and communal problems. Yet, the West and much of the international media fail to hold the government accountable or highlight the pattern of discrimination and violence.
Meanwhile, the disproportionate attention given to Osman Hadi underscores the problem of selective outrage. Hadi was buried with honor next to Bangladesh’s national poet Kazi Nazrul Islam, and his death was widely covered, despite his radical political activities. Das, a non-political worker with no influence or platform, received no such recognition. This contrast illustrates a troubling bias: the West often amplifies incidents that fit its political or ideological interests while ignoring equally horrific acts that do not.
This selective approach also fuels the perception that Western countries are inconsistent in defending human rights. While they condemn some acts of violence forcefully, they remain silent on others, especially when the victims belong to minority communities in countries that are not their immediate concern. This encourages a “conspiracy of silence” around attacks like Das’s lynching and allows such incidents to continue without meaningful global attention or pressure on local authorities.
In conclusion, the deaths of Dipu Chandra Das and Osman Hadi reveal a harsh reality about international responses to violence. While Hadi’s killing was widely mourned and condemned, Das’s brutal lynching was largely ignored, exposing the West’s narrow focus on selective victims. Violence against minorities in Bangladesh, and elsewhere in South Asia, requires consistent condemnation. Human rights must be defended for all, without bias, political convenience, or selective outrage. The world’s failure to do so in the case of Dipu Chandra Das is a stark reminder of the long-standing Western bias in recognizing victims.
Copyright © © 2022 Copyright. All Rights Reserved with Arth Parkash