The death of Bangladeshi student leader Sharif Osman Hadi, followed by days of nationwide unrest, has rightly drawn international attention — including from the United Kingdom’s diplomatic mission in Dhaka and the United Nations Human Rights Office. Yet a glaring omission in their recent posts on X is impossible to ignore: neither has clearly or explicitly condemned the lynching and burning of a Hindu man in Bangladesh during the same period of violent upheaval.
The brutal incident occurred in Mymensingh, where a young Hindu garment worker, Dipu Chandra Das, was beaten to death by a mob on allegations of blasphemy, his body tied to a tree and set on fire — in full public view. This barbaric act has shocked observers and raised urgent questions about the safety of religious minorities in Bangladesh.
Across the country, protests erupted following the shooting of Sharif Osman Hadi in Dhaka earlier this month. He later succumbed to his injuries in Singapore. His death triggered violent demonstrations, vandalism of media houses, attacks on cultural institutions, and, tragically, the lynching of Dipu Chandra Das.
In this volatile context, the UK in Bangladesh’s recent tweet focuses on reactions to Hadi’s death and the broader unrest, yet fails to mention the lynching at all. Diplomats have a duty to speak out unequivocally against all forms of violence — especially when that violence targets minorities who are already vulnerable.
Similarly, the UN Human Rights account’s tweet, while calling for investigations into unrest, remains vague and avoids direct reference to this horrific killing — a silence that has not gone unnoticed and has attracted widespread criticism and online backlash.
International responses during moments of crisis often shape behaviour on the ground. When diplomatic missions or human rights bodies emphasise political narratives while failing to condemn mob atrocities with equal clarity, it allows impunity to grow and signals to extremists that some victims matter more than others. In a world where human rights are meant to be universal, this selective outrage is unacceptable.
Several organisations, including Amnesty International, have called for accountability for mob violence and demanded impartial, thorough investigations into all killings, including the lynching of Dipu Chandra Das. While Bangladesh’s interim government has officially condemned the lynching and promised that those responsible will be brought to justice, international actors must reinforce — not undermine — this message through clear and principled communication.
The world must view Bangladesh’s current turmoil not only through the lens of political unrest, but through the lens of universal human dignity. Condemning violence selectively erodes the moral authority of institutions that claim to defend human rights. There can be no hierarchy of victims.
The lynching and burning of a Hindu man is not a footnote to unrest — it is a human tragedy that demands unequivocal condemnation. Silence, in this case, is not neutrality. It is complicity.
