Across the world, we are repeatedly told that human rights are universal, indivisible, and non-negotiable. Yet recent events force an uncomfortable question: Are some lives easier to ignore than others? 

There has been little to no international outrage over a Hindu man being lynched, tied to a tree, and set on fire. Indian diplomatic missions were attacked, yet the incident barely registered in global headlines. Two Bangladeshi newspaper offices were burned, journalists trapped inside and nearly killed — still, the silence endured. These are not isolated incidents; they are omissions that reveal a troubling pattern. 

Hindus constitute nearly one in every six people on Earth, yet our persecution, displacement, and targeted violence rarely find sustained attention in global media or multilateral forums. While selectivity in politics may be unsurprising, selectivity in human rights advocacy is far more dangerous. When international institutions and prominent media houses choose what to see — and what to ignore — they risk undermining the very moral authority they claim to uphold. 

The absence of any mention of the murder of Dipu Chandra Das in major “live coverage” by outlets such as the BBC raises serious questions about editorial responsibility. Silence, when it comes to violence, is not neutrality — it is a choice. 

Human rights cannot depend on geopolitics, ideological comfort, or the preferences of powerful governments. If violations against Hindus fail to trigger the same concern, condemnation, and inquiry as others, then the promise of universal human rights rings hollow. 

This is not a call for privilege. It is a call for parity.

Not selective outrage — but consistent justice.