70 Hindu lawyers falsely implicated in legal cases to prevent them from representing Hindu monk in Bangladesh

Case ID : 595487a | Location : Bangladesh | Date of Incident : Mon, 2 December, 2024

Case ID : 595487a

Bangladesh

2 December, 2024

70 Hindu lawyers falsely implicated in legal cases to prevent them from representing Hindu monk in Bangladesh

Attack not resulting in death

Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim

Case Summary

In Bangladesh, no lawyers appeared for the bail hearing of Hindu monk Chinmoy Krishna Prabhu in Chattogram court. Reports indicate that the Bar Association in Chattogram actively barred legal professionals from representing the Hindu religious leader. Rabindra Ghosh, a lawyer who travelled nearly 250 km from Dhaka to attend the hearing, was denied entry to the court premises by locals. Sources also revealed that approximately 70 Hindu lawyers were allegedly "falsely sued" to prevent them from participating in the case. Chinmoy Krishna, a spokesperson for the Bangladesh Sammilita Sanatani Jagran Jote, was arrested on November 25 at Dhaka’s Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport. He was subsequently denied bail by a magistrate court in Chattogram and sent to police custody. Despite being disowned by ISKCON Bangladesh in October for disciplinary reasons, ISKCON Kolkata’s vice-president Radharamn Das criticised the systemic challenges faced by Chinmoy Krishna and the Hindu minority community. Das condemned the situation, leading to the metropolitan sessions judge Md Saiful Islam scheduling the next bail hearing a month later.

Why it is Hate Crime ?

This case has been added to the database as a religiously motivated hate crime under the prime category of- Attack not resulting in death. Under this, the sub-category selected is- Attacked for opposing radicals or trying to save victim. In several cases, Hindus are attacked for opposing religiously motivated crimes being committed against a fellow Hindu or simply for voicing an opinion opposing radical elements, who either have in the past or continue to persecute Hindus. In such cases, the initial attack against the victim, against which the Hindu was trying to defend the victim, would also need to be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime. Since the initial crime itself was religiously motivated and the subsequent crime of attempting to save the victim or speaking against the radical elements ends up inviting a violent attack, it would also be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime under this category. All individuals, regardless of their religion or background, have the fundamental right to seek legal representation. The actions taken against Hindu lawyers in this case, including the denial of entry to the court and the false lawsuits aimed at preventing them from representing a Hindu monk, directly infringe upon this basic right. Such restrictions on legal access are not only prejudicial but also a clear denial of the rights guaranteed to Hindus in a democratic society. By targeting these lawyers based solely on their religion and their willingness to defend a Hindu religious leader, the perpetrators are engaging in acts of discrimination and hostility towards the Hindu community. The motivation behind these actions stems from a deep-seated animosity towards Hindu beliefs and an attempt to suppress the voices advocating for the rights and freedom of Hindus. As such, these actions are categorised as religiously motivated hate crimes, highlighting the systemic challenges faced by the Hindu minority in Bangladesh.