Hinduism and ISKCON attacked in Bangladesh

The situation in Bangladesh is becoming increasingly grave, with minorities, especially Hindus, being threatened by elements that have gained significant power. The government is not doing much to protect these minorities. ISKCON has been accused of being a terrorist organization, and its members are being threatened. Several Hindu leaders, including a Krishna devotee, Chinmoy Krishna Das, have been arrested.

While radicalism, extremism, and fanaticism have slightly different connotations, in this article, they are used more or less interchangeably. I will address this issue from four distinct perspectives: philosophical, geopolitical, institutional, and individual.

Philosophical level

Many times, when such troubles come up, some people may say, “Oh, this is all politics. I don’t want to get involved.” But it depends on what we mean by the word politics. Politics has two distinct meanings. First, it has a neutral, functional meaning: the system, art, or science of governance. Second, it has a more negative connotation: the use of questionable or even reprehensible means, such as scheming, rumor-mongering, and character assassination to attain or retain power.

Those on a spiritual path should carefully avoid engaging in politics in the second sense. However, politics in the first sense—a system of governance—affects everyone. We may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in us. Government policies, such as those related to taxation or laws that may be biased for or against certain groups, matter greatly. So too will governmental orientations toward religion, whereby they may make practicing our faith difficult or even impossible.

From a philosophical perspective, Krishna is not uninvolved in politics. In fact, when he descends to earth, one of his purposes is to bring about order in society, which is referred to as dharma (Bhagavad Gita 4.8). Such dharma refers to societal order and is distinct from shraddha (faith) or bhakti (devotion), which is personal and devotional. Krishna does not force everyone to become his devotee. For instance, on the Pandavas’ side during the Kurukshetra war, there were followers of Shiva who remained Shaivites. Similarly, on the Kauravas’ side, there were people like Bhishma who were Vaishnavas despite being on the side opposing the Pandavas.

The point is that Krishna’s mission of establishing dharma was not about imposing a particular faith on anyone. While Krishna does want us to become his devotees (18.66) and a government conducive to spiritual growth is desirable, he conveys in the Bhagavad Gita (4.9–10) that such growth must be individually chosen, not governmentally enforced. Nonetheless, the establishment of a basic societal order or dharma is a necessity, combating whatever threats may be present at different times throughout history.

One major threat to societal dharma today is radicalism, which can be understood in the context of the Bhagavad Gita as knowledge in the mode of ignorance (18.22). Radicalism reduces complex issues to a single attribute, ignoring the broader picture. Whether it arises from a secular ideology or a religious one, radicalism is a threat. For example, Marxism in Soviet Russia and China was highly reductive, targeting those considered unfaithful to the state, regardless of their other qualities or contributions. Similarly, religious fanaticism reduces people to one attribute—faith—and dehumanizes anyone who does not conform.

This reductionism erodes human sensitivity, decency, and humanity itself. Radicalism is thus an enemy of humanity, and it must be countered as a foundational necessity for human society. Religious extremism may seem to be a threat only to people who don’t follow that religion, but such extremism is a vicious and voracious monster; it will soon turn on its own. It will prey upon not only people of other religions but also people within the same religion who hold differing views of the same sacred text or teacher. For example, in Christianity, radical Catholics have targeted Protestants and vice versa. In Islam, radical Shias have persecuted Sunnis and vice versa.

Pertinently, the Srimad Bhagavatam describes how faith manifests in different modes of nature. It emphasizes that sattva-guna (goodness) fosters cooperation and harmony, whereas tamas (ignorance) is exclusivist, intolerant, separatist, and violent. Such faith disrupts societal harmony and fosters fanaticism. It is the responsibility of the state—its dharma—to prevent the surfacing of such tamasic faith. In this light, secularism, in the sense of a governing dispensation and disposition that allows people to practice their faiths peacefully, is not only compatible with dharma; it is integral to dharma.

Let us now examine where God is amidst such atrocities. Why does God not protect those devoted to him? God does protect, but he generally acts through human agents. He wants us humans to take responsibility to do our part. Krishna spoke the entire Gita to inspire Arjuna to play his part in the divine mission of establishing dharma. Arjuna’s faith in Krishna’s proclamation about his infallible protection (9.31) did not foster in him a passive dependence on God to do everything; far from it, it inspired in him a dynamic diligence to do all he could to fulfill God’s mission, as conveyed in his concluding declaration: “I will do your will.” (18.73). And as subsequently demonstrated by Krishna’s actions in the Mahabharata war, when Arjuna had done everything he could, Krishna did what Arjuna couldn’t — especially on the fourteenth day when he had taken a vow to neutralize Jayadratha.

Geopolitical level

Let us now examine this issue from a geopolitical perspective. Historically, the territories now comprising Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan were one. Ethnically, the people share significant similarities, as most Muslims in Bangladesh were originally Hindus who were converted, often forcibly. However, this shared history is overshadowed by the reductionism-triggered focus on a single attribute: faith.

Today, radical elements in Bangladesh target Hindus, portraying them as followers of the majority religion in India and therefore more faithful to India than to Bangladesh. However, this reduction ignores their shared heritage as people who have grown in the same cultural and ethnic milieu for generations. Pertinently, before Bangladesh gained independence, it faced persecution from religious extremists in Pakistan because Pakistani Muslims deemed Bangladeshi Muslims inferior due to their different ethnicity. It is ironic now that Bangladesh is embracing the very religious fanaticism it once fought against and forgetting its shared ethnic identity with Hindus — the very ethnicity for which it was previously targeted.

The geopolitical situation is further complicated by external influences. Some suggest that the American deep state (a network of influential government or non-government entities operating behind the scenes) played a role in overthrowing the previous government in Bangladesh. The U.S. government is poised for change, and the incoming dispensation may be more favorable to Hindu minorities in Bangladesh, given Trump’s supportive tweets and the presence in his inner circle of vocal and influential Hindus, such as Tulasi Gabbard and Vivek Ramaswamy. That’s why extremist elements may be seizing this opportunity to cause irreversible demographic damage to minorities before new U.S. policies exert pressure on the current regime.

Additionally, India needs to consider China’s vested interests in Bangladesh, given that it is located next to the Siliguri Corridor—the narrow “chicken’s neck” of India—which is India’s sole physical pathway to its northeastern states. If India becomes too aggressive toward Bangladesh, it may push the latter more into China’s embrace for security reasons, thereby jeopardizing Indian security. India must act cautiously, balancing national security concerns with its concerns for Hindus in Bangladesh.

Moving to the institutional perspective, we see how history demonstrates that significant changes often occur incrementally rather than through radical upheaval.

Institutional level

ISKCON has a global presence; yet it has spread much more widely than thickly. The number of its followers is not huge; it does not have a large political influence and historically it has not been involved in political concerns. In its relatively short history, it has not faced an existential threat to its community from religious radicalism the way it is facing in Bangladesh, where its cultural visibility makes it especially vulnerable during present volatile times.

Perceptions that ISKCON has disowned  Chinmoy Krishna Das are misleading. The movement respects his rights as an individual and a faith leader, expressing concern for his safety. However, it has clarified that he does not currently represent ISKCON in an official capacity.

Balancing the safety of its broader community with standing up for justice for one particular member is a delicate challenge. In such volatile situations, the right course of action often becomes clear only with time. History shows that life sometimes presents no good options, and decisions must be made among unsatisfactory choices. As Krishna states in the Bhagavad Gita, all endeavors in this world are covered by faults, just as fire is covered by smoke (18.48).

When institutional actions seem incomprehensible, we may question whether they stem from malevolence (“Do the institution’s leaders not care at all for the members’ safety?”) or incompetence (“Do they not have the skills to deal with such high-stakes scenarios?”) or ignorance (“Do they not know how serious the problem is?”). However, there is a fourth possibility: we may be ignorant of the complexity of the situation. That’s why we may need to give the institution’s leaders the benefit of the doubt — especially when they are navigating uncharted territory while facing unprecedented challenges.

Finally, let us consider how individuals can respond in these challenging circumstances.

 Individual level

Finally, let us consider how individuals can respond in these challenging circumstances. Our response depends on our position (guna) and disposition (karma). Regarding our position, those of us who are followers of Sanatana Dharma through the aegis of ISKCON may wonder about our identity—are we Hindus? At the transcendental (paramarthika) level, we are devotees of the one universal ultimate reality that we know by the name Krishna — this identity transcends all categories of identity in this world, including religious categorization in which Hinduism is one category. However, at a functional (vyavaharika) level, we will be identified as Hindus. While we may not label ourselves as such, extremists will see us as Hindus, often as highly visible representatives of Hinduism due to our external symbols.

Recognizing this reality, we have a responsibility to act when Hindus are threatened, what to speak of when fellow ISKCON members are targeted. ISKCON as an institution may not take a public stand for various strategic reasons, and its members may be constrained to some degree by the institution’s noncommittal position. Nonetheless, depending on the degree of their affiliation with the movement, individual members can express their personal concerns appropriately without making provocative, overgeneralizing statements about any religion or nation that can backfire on the entire community.

What kind of response can individuals choose? Drawing from the wisdom of our tradition and texts, our responses can range from equanimity to empathy. Equanimity helps us stay steady, recognizing that the world is filled with terrible events and that we cannot let ourselves be overwhelmed. Empathy allows us to connect with and support those who are suffering. The Bhagavad Gita emphasizes both qualities: equanimity as the characteristic of the self-realized in 2.56 and empathy as the hallmark of the topmost yogi in 6.32.

Those who feel strongly and gravitate toward empathy can engage in protests, rallies, or social media campaigns to exert political pressure. While the impact of such efforts may not be immediately visible, doing our part is essential. And we can wait for Krishna to do his part. Krishna states in the Bhagavad Gita that this world is a place of distress (8.15). Often, our choices are not between good and bad but between less satisfactory options. While most of us cannot bring about dramatic change in Bangladesh, we can decide how best to contribute within our capacity.

Conclusion

From a philosophical perspective, countering radicalism and fulfilling our human responsibility is essential for establishing dharma.

From a geopolitical perspective, patience and hope for incremental change are necessary.

From an institutional perspective, acknowledging the complexity of decisions made in volatile situations is crucial.

From an individual perspective, choosing responses that align with one’s position and disposition, ranging from prayerful equanimity to empathetic action, is significant.

Through these four levels, we can navigate this complex issue thoughtfully and constructively.