Source: India Realist
http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/persecution-of-hindus-in-bangladesh/
The Amsterdam-based Global Human Rights Defense is out with its annual report on human rights violations in Bangladesh. Here is the section that relates to atrocities on the hapless Hindu minority in 2008.
BACKGROUND
Until 1971 Liberation War, Hindus and Muslims worked together to liberate the country from Pakistan. During this period, an estimated two million East Pakistani citizens are believed to have been massacred, whilst an estimated ten million (mainly Hindu) fled to India.
The new President, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, in his first speech to the nation, recognised the suffering of the Hindu population during the war. However, the Enemy Property Act of 1965 that was passed whilst Bangladesh was still part of Pakistan, a law discriminating against non-Muslim ‘enemies of the state’ by allowing their property to be confiscated, was not repealed and indeed was renamed as the Vested Property Act 1974. It allowed the expropriation of Hindu property to continue, leaving much bitterness amongst Bangladeshi Hindus.
Members of the Hindu community have lost 26 million acres of land from 1965 to 2006, while many others were forced to leave the country from 1964 to 2001 because of the communal conflicts and deprivation caused by the Act. The Hindu population percentage has reduced dramatically in the last 60 years.
CURRENT SITUATION
In 2008 Hindus were targeted due to inter-communal disagreements, quarrels over land or other disputes. Hindus were physically attacked, had their houses looted, temples destroyed and many women were raped.
Due to corruption, ignorance, and discriminatory attitudes, the police were often uncooperative when Hindu minorities attempt to obtain justice for crimes committed against them. In many cases, the police did not assist the victims to receive medical and/or legal assistance.
The police sometimes discouraged the victims from reporting about the crimes, or they did not investigate cases before accepting counter cases that led to the detention of the victims. Sometimes they recorded the case under a lower criminal charge than the actual crime deserved.