Bangladesh rejects India’s MEA remarks, defends protest response stance.
Touhid Hossain responds after India slams Bangladesh media reports as misleading propaganda, deepening diplomatic friction between the two sides.
Bangladesh has firmly rejected India’s comments regarding a demonstration held outside the Bangladesh High Commission in New Delhi, escalating a fresh round of diplomatic tension between the two neighbours. The issue centres on protests sparked by the killing of a young Hindu man in Bangladesh and differing interpretations of how the demonstration unfolded and was handled by Indian authorities.
On Sunday, December 21, 2025, Bangladesh’s interim government said it “entirely” rejected India’s remarks describing the protesters as “Hindu extremists.” Dhaka also questioned how demonstrators were able to approach the High Commission so closely, given that it is located within a highly secured diplomatic enclave in the Indian capital.
The comments were made by Bangladesh’s interim government foreign affairs adviser, M. Touhid Hossain, just hours after India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) dismissed as “misleading propaganda” reports in Bangladeshi media suggesting that the protest had created a security situation outside the mission.
According to the MEA, around 20 to 25 youths gathered outside the Bangladesh High Commission on Saturday. The protesters raised slogans condemning what India described as the “horrendous killing” of Dipu Chandra Das, a 25-year-old Hindu man who was lynched by a mob in Mymensingh on Thursday, December 18. The MEA said the demonstrators were calling for justice for the victim and demanding better protection for religious minorities in Bangladesh.
India emphasised that the protest was small, peaceful, and did not threaten the security of the Bangladeshi diplomatic mission or its staff. It also rejected Bangladeshi media reports that suggested the demonstration was allowed to escalate or that it posed a serious risk to the High Commission.
However, Dhaka has taken strong exception to this account. Speaking at a media briefing, He argued that the situation was being presented by India as overly simple, while, in reality, it raised serious questions about security and access in a restricted diplomatic zone.
Mr. Hossain asked, according to state-run news agency Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS). He added that under normal circumstances, such access should not have been possible unless it was permitted by the authorities.
Mr. Hossain also described the MEA’s statement as “oversimplified,” stressing that the size of the crowd was not the main concern. According to him, the protesters did not limit themselves to slogans about the killing of a Bangladeshi Hindu citizen but made “other statements as well,” the nature of which he suggested warranted greater scrutiny.
The Bangladeshi adviser further defended reporting by Bangladeshi media outlets, insisting that the coverage was largely accurate and not misleading, as claimed by India. He said Dhaka was concerned about how the incident was being framed and the broader implications for diplomatic security.
At the same time, Mr. Hossain sought to dial down speculation about further escalation. When asked whether he had any concrete evidence to support reports or rumours of death threats against Bangladesh’s envoy in New Delhi, he said he did not.
The controversy comes at a sensitive time in India–Bangladesh relations, which have often balanced close cooperation with periodic tensions, particularly over minority rights, border issues, and domestic political developments in Bangladesh. India has repeatedly expressed concern over violence against minorities in Bangladesh, while Dhaka has pushed back against what it sees as external commentary on its internal affairs.
While both sides have so far confined their responses to official statements and briefings, the episode underscores how quickly emotive issues — especially those involving religion, violence, and diplomatic security — can strain ties. Whether the matter subsides or develops further may depend on how both governments choose to address concerns behind closed doors in the days ahead.