The case of Chinmoy Krishna Das, a Hindu monk whose arrest sparked a political and sectarian storm in Bangladesh, highlights a deeper issue: the dominance of Indian media in shaping global narratives, especially in stories tied to smaller countries. Supporters of Das argue that he is being silenced for speaking out about the challenges faced by Bangladesh’s Hindu minority, while critics accuse him of fueling a divisive political agenda amid Bangladesh’s fragile government.
For decades, Bangladesh’s Hindu community has been central to the ruling Awami League’s foreign policy, often used to promote a secular image and strengthen ties with India. However, after the downfall of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government, violent reprisals against Hindus became widespread. Temples were destroyed, and idols desecrated, reflecting deep sectarian tensions. As Hasina sought refuge in India, these tensions escalated, particularly in Chattogram, where deadly clashes erupted between Das’s supporters and the police.
While this crisis unfolded, the Indian media played a central role in amplifying the story, drawing attention and stirring emotions among Hindu nationalists in India. This coverage sparked protests and even a mob attack on a Bangladeshi consulate. Yet, local Bangladeshi outlets, such as The Daily Star and Prothom Alo, struggled to make an impact on Google’s search results. Indian publications such as The Hindu and Hindustan Times dominated, reflecting a wider trend: Indian media overshadowed local journalism in search rankings, even for stories deeply rooted in Bangladesh’s own political and religious context.
A detailed analysis revealed that Indian media outlets consistently occupied top positions on Google search results, whether users were searching from Bangladesh or abroad. Even when Bangladeshi sources were available, they were buried far down the list, often overlooked by users who tend to stick to the first page of search results. In contrast, Google’s algorithm could highlight local news in other regions, such as the United States, where searches for local stories like the Madison school shooting prominently featured local outlets.
This disparity can be explained by Google’s ranking system, which prioritizes high-engagement content that often comes from larger, more established media outlets. India’s vast publishing industry, with its high volume of English-language news optimized for search engines, holds greater “domain authority,” leading Google’s algorithm to favor it. In comparison, Bangladeshi outlets, often catering to a Bengali-speaking audience, cannot match the SEO sophistication or the sheer scale of Indian news production. This leaves local stories from Bangladesh sidelined in favor of foreign narratives, often oversimplified or sensationalized.
The consequences of this are far-reaching. Biased search results distort the global understanding of events, amplifying one-sided perspectives and fueling political tensions. For example, in the case of Bangladesh, the rise of sectarian violence and the plight of the Hindu minority is often reported through the lens of India’s own political interests. This creates a skewed perception of Bangladesh’s political landscape and undermines efforts for a nuanced understanding of the country’s internal conflicts, especially when international entities—governments, NGOs, and diplomats—rely on search engines for insight.
Google’s failure to prioritize local journalism in smaller countries is particularly worrying in regions like South Asia, where political rivalries are fraught with historical and religious sensitivities. In the case of Bangladesh, this results in a distortion of the narrative surrounding the collapse of Hasina’s government and the treatment of minorities, potentially reinforcing misleading narratives about the country’s political direction.
While Google claims to prioritize relevance, freshness, and authority in its search rankings, the algorithm’s reliance on SEO metrics often favors sensational or high-traffic content at the expense of more balanced, on-the-ground reporting. This is evident when compared to how local news outlets in the U.S. are given prominence in search results for domestic stories. If Google can do this for Wisconsin, there’s no reason why it cannot apply similar logic to Bangladesh, ensuring that local voices are heard and not drowned out by larger media powers.
In conclusion, as information gatekeepers, search engines like Google play a crucial role in shaping public perceptions. The skewed prominence of Indian media in global search results for Bangladeshi stories is a missed opportunity for local journalists to tell their own stories. By prioritizing local news and providing a more balanced representation, Google can help foster a deeper understanding of complex issues, ensuring that smaller countries are not silenced by their larger neighbors.
