While the article ‘India is Losing Bangladesh to China and Pakistan and it Could Get Worse’ raises valid concerns about strategic and geopolitical issues in India-Bangladesh relations, it fails to address critical factors that undermine its credibility and fairness. Firstly, the article portrays #India as a victim of shifting allegiances in #Bangladesh but neglects to acknowledge India’s role in fostering discord. For instance, it overlooks India’s coordinated disinformation campaigns targeting Bangladesh since August 5, 2024, aimed at discrediting the interim government, sowing division, and creating anarchy. These campaigns, well-documented by independent sources, are a critical aspect of the bilateral dynamics that cannot be ignored in any balanced analysis. Secondly, the piece sidesteps India’s internal #human-rights challenges, which have significantly eroded its moral authority in the region. India’s declining track record on minority rights - exemplified by mob lynchings, anti-minority riots, and systemic persecution of Muslims and other marginalized groups - is conspicuously absent from the discussion. The irony of accusing Bangladesh of aligning with ‘radical forces’ while India grapples with the rise of #Hindutva ideology underscores a glaring double standard that the article fails to address. Furthermore, the piece omits a critical incident in Bangladesh that exemplifies its resilience against communal unrest. When Chinmoy Das’s followers hacked a Muslim lawyer to death in broad daylight - a heinous act that could have sparked widespread violence - the Bangladeshi interim government, political leaders across the spectrum (including Muslim religious leaders), and the public united to prevent communal conflict. In contrast, similar incidents in India often escalate into widespread violence fueled by Hindutva-driven retaliation. This contrast in conflict resolution and governance is neither mentioned nor examined. Lastly, the article exaggerates the influence of #China and #Pakistan while diminishing Bangladesh’s agency in shaping its foreign policy. By portraying Bangladesh as a passive actor in a geopolitical tug-of-war, the piece undermines the nation’s sovereignty and strategic autonomy. This paternalistic tone reflects a deeper bias, disregarding Bangladesh’s capacity to pursue its own interests in an increasingly multipolar world. In conclusion, the article presents a narrow, India-centric perspective that glosses over inconvenient truths about India’s own shortcomings and its role in straining relations with Bangladesh. A more balanced critique would account for these dimensions, offering a nuanced analysis of South Asia’s complex geopolitical landscape. By failing to do so, the piece misses an opportunity to promote genuine understanding and constructive dialogue.