Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has accused Opposition parties and sections of civil society of “selective activism”, alleging they hold candle marches for Gaza but remain silent when Hindus, including a Dalit youth, are killed in Bangladesh.
Speaking during the winter session of the Uttar Pradesh Assembly in Lucknow, Adityanath launched a sharp attack on his political opponents, accusing them of double standards on human rights and minority safety.
He said many leaders and activists “shed tears for everything that happens in the Gaza Strip” but fail to raise their voices with equal force when Hindus are targeted in neighbouring countries such as Bangladesh and Pakistan.
The Chief Minister’s remarks came in the backdrop of reports about a young Dalit Hindu man allegedly killed in Bangladesh amid continuing concerns over the safety of minorities there.
Without naming specific parties, Adityanath alleged that Opposition leaders see Dalits “only as a vote bank”, claiming their outrage is calibrated according to political convenience and religious identity.
“Is humanity so selective that you will take out candle marches for Gaza, but not utter a single word when a Hindu, a Dalit, is murdered in Bangladesh?” he reportedly asked, urging lawmakers to adopt a more consistent moral stance.
According to him, genuine commitment to human rights cannot be confined to one geography, faith or ideology.
Call For Assembly Resolution, Pushback From Opposition
Adityanath urged the House to pass a formal resolution condemning the alleged killing of Hindus in Bangladesh and to “warn” the Sheikh Hasina government over recurring attacks on religious minorities.
Though foreign policy is primarily the Union government’s domain, the Chief Minister argued that state legislatures also have a duty to speak up on issues of basic human rights.
Reports from the Assembly said his comments triggered sharp responses from Opposition benches, with leaders accusing the government of selectively spotlighting cross‑border crimes while ignoring hate speech, communal tensions and caste violence within India.
Some legislators argued that the ruling party often internationalises atrocities on Hindus, but downplays attacks on Muslims, Christians, Adivasis and other vulnerable groups at home.
Opposition voices also questioned whether such statements could strain India’s diplomatic engagement with Bangladesh, a key partner in trade, security cooperation and border management.
They maintained that while any attack on minorities is condemnable, these concerns must be addressed through established diplomatic channels and without inflaming communal passions domestically.
Civil society reactions have been more varied. Some commentators backed the Chief Minister’s demand for consistent outrage, pointing to repeated reports of temple vandalism, land grabs and targeted assaults on Hindus and other minorities in Bangladesh.
Others cautioned that genuine solidarity must not be reduced to competitive victimhood, where one suffering is invoked primarily to dismiss or relativise another.
Background: Minority Safety, Global Conflicts And Protest Culture
The debate comes at a time when conflicts in West Asia, especially the ongoing war in Gaza, have drawn large‑scale protests, online campaigns and solidarity events across Indian cities and campuses. Candle marches, teach‑ins and social media campaigns demanding a ceasefire and protection of civilians have been widely reported.
Critics of Adityanath’s remarks say such protests are part of a broader global peace movement and not evidence of indifference towards other victims.
At the same time, minority rights groups have repeatedly flagged attacks on Hindus, Buddhists and other communities in Bangladesh, especially during times of political instability or communal tension.
International watchdogs have documented instances of mob violence, forced displacement and destruction of places of worship. Activists argue that these patterns warrant more sustained international pressure, including from India, to safeguard basic rights.
Within India, the conversation around “selective outrage” has become a recurring political talking point. Different sides routinely accuse each other of speaking up only when victims belong to their perceived support base.
Whether it is lynchings, custodial deaths, caste‑based atrocities or cross‑border violence, public responses are often filtered through partisan and identity lenses, deepening polarisation rather than fostering a shared human‑rights framework.
Adityanath’s intervention in the Assembly taps into this larger narrative. By juxtaposing Gaza protests with attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh, he sought to highlight what he views as an imbalance in empathy and advocacy.
However, critics warn that framing suffering in competitive terms risks trivialising all victims, instead of building a broader coalition that opposes violence in every context.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The Logical Indian believes that no life should be graded on a moral scale determined by religion, nationality or political allegiance.
Political leaders, parties and civil society must move beyond selective outrage and adopt a principled, universal human‑rights lens.
That means condemning violence consistently, demanding accountability from all governments, and resisting attempts to turn grief into a tool for polarisation.
