The Concern Over Human Rights In India – The Organization for World Peace

On July 27, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken traveled to India, where he met with leading figures in the country and discussed the close ties between the two countries. The following day, Blinken and India’s Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar held a meeting on the international security partnership shared by the two states, monetary aid for the coronavirus pandemic, global democracy and the future of Afghanistan.

These talks have succeeded in fostering the bond between India and the United States and building on their shared goals of peace and stability. One pressing issue of freedom escaped meaningful discussion, however: human rights in India itself.

In recent years, India has been under scrutiny for the human rights concerns that prevail in the country. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, anti-terror laws have damaged Indian civil society, and government policies that incite religious discrimination have put minorities in dangerous positions. According to the U.S. Department of State’s 2020 India Human Rights Practices Report, problems in the region include extrajudicial killings, torture, prisoners of conscience, restrictions on press and expression, child labor, and other national crimes.

Religious intolerance at the government level, combined with internal corruption, has shaped much of the violence observed under the Modi government. Muslims, the most significant minority in the country, have fallen victim to legal restrictions, including a religion-based citizenship law, and are subject to discriminatory attacks due to Hindu nationalism. In addition, a report by Human Rights Watch detailed the problems in India, including punishing political opposition, using internet shutdowns to control social protests, and attacks on reporters and human rights organizations.

Concern about the growing lack of human rights in India has been raised on several occasions. Several international actors have urged the Indian government to treat its citizens more acceptably. However, these external responses to the humanitarian abuses of the South Asian country lack substance. Almost every major nation and organization has failed to overcome verbal criticism in dealing with the problem. As a result, India’s injustice has received responses that lack strength and effectiveness.

These empty condemnations come from even the greatest advocates of democracy and human rights in the world. Despite Antony Blinken’s promise to speak about India’s human rights record, the superficial conversation remained in line with the United States’ goal of keeping India a close ally. Criticism from the European Union, the United Nations, several NGOs and other international powers has met with rejection. The situation is exacerbated by Prime Minister Modi’s government continuing to deny wrongdoing. According to Reuters, in relation to Blinken’s plan to confront Indian leaders with humanitarian concerns in the country, the Indian State Department said the nation took pride in its pluralistic traditions and was happy to discuss the matter with the U.S. Secretary of State.

Attempts to deal with problems in India are constantly hampered by policy, resulting in ineffective responses that are seen by the whole world. The relationship between India and the United States is an example of this. Antony Blinken said: “There are few relationships in the world more important than those between the US and India. We are the two leading democracies in the world and our diversity strengthens our national strength. “

However, India’s current state calls this claim into question. The blatant attacks and the disregard for fundamental aspects of democratic systems and values ​​show little credibility. According to Amnesty International, government critics, journalists, students and human rights defenders have been subjected to severe abuse, including arbitrary arrest and harassment by the police. The human rights violations that have occurred, particularly in relation to political opponents and restrictions on universal freedoms, dispute the notion that India is in fact a reliable democratic institution. Despite these incidents, the South Asian country is clearly lacking in consequences, most of which are politically justified.

The problem with dealing with India’s human rights record lies in the inconsistency. The hollow pressure on Modi’s government has not worked and will not be in the future. There is no significant determination to resolve the problem – the lack of impact only threatens to further harm human rights in India. With no real consequences, Prime Minister Modi and his party can continue to abuse Indian citizens. While countries and organizations around the world condemn India and its detrimental activities, little effort is made by outside actors to promote lasting change in the country; they have different priorities.

As the failure of spoken rejection becomes apparent, it is increasingly necessary to find a practical solution. Because of the complexity of world politics, this is not an easy endeavor with a simple answer. As recognized by the international community, India holds significant power in the modern world. With the rise of China and attempts by the United States to counter its gain, India presents itself as a critical ally. Furthermore, despite the flaws its system exhibits, India still has the largest population of any democracy. This status makes the confrontation difficult. Anything beyond verbal rejection jeopardizes vital international relationships.

An alternative approach is needed to improve human rights in India. In order to promote the real acceptance of diversity and counteract the violent policies of the Modi government, it takes more than vague language. Monitoring and reporting on human rights in India and then presenting these results on a large scale can help improve the situation. While that is important, it is not enough. In addition to other incentives to develop human rights, requirements built into trade agreements can solve the dilemma. Addressing issues within the Indian government, such as monetary and political penalties, more directly is another strategy that could lead to change. However, these options carry the risk that the citizens of India, who are to be protected by these measures, will be harmed economically and physically. So another solution is needed to create a situation where a possible change will occur.

One possibility is to discredit India’s reputation as a stable democracy. Losing this status, even informally, is dangerous and carries more political risks for the administration than for the Indian population. Then the perpetrators, the current government, will be held accountable as opposed to the people, who should not suffer additional suffering for the humanitarian crimes of their leaders. It does not pose an exceptional threat to peace or stability and only creates an environment of subversive shame that has the potential to advance Indian human rights. If enacted by a significant number of world authorities, it could have the power to propel India towards stability. In coordination with international organizations dealing with other societal issues such as Hindu nationalism, reducing human rights violations in India is an achievable ideal.

Addressing the human rights issue in India is vital. Aggressive policies and government actions continue to hurt people, and the lack of a substantial response from international actors only exacerbates the problem. Human rights violations are not limited to being an imminent threat either – these abuses can be gateways to further violence and insecurity. Whether the result is destructive government repression or a civil uprising, violations of human rights can threaten the future of the nation. The protection of human rights is therefore just as topical as it is preventive. The government must take it seriously, and that means acting beyond empty and ineffective words.