Address slide in India’s freedom perception

Significantly, while Freedom House depends on US federal government grants for more than 90 per cent of its funding, it has also dropped America’s freedom score by 11 points over a decade and has been critical of the erosion of the country’s institutions. It has been particularly critical of former President Donald Trump. Nevertheless, the US still remains in the ‘free’ category, though it is considered along with India as a ‘troubled’ democracy.

Soft power: There can be no quarrel with India’s attempt to bring ancient traditions such as yoga to the world’s notice. file photo

Vivek Katju

Ex-Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs

FReedom House, the US-based NGO which claims its mission is to conduct “research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights” issued its annual Freedom in the World report on March 3. In these reports, Freedom House puts all countries in three categories: free, partially free and not free.

This year’s report caused a flutter in India for it downgraded the country from free to the partially free category. Not only this, in its press release on the occasion of putting out the report, Freedom House called India’s “status change” as “one of the year’s most significant developments.” It also noted that “Indians’ political rights and civil liberties have been eroding since Narendra Modi became Prime Minister in 2014.”

Not surprisingly, the Ministry of External Affairs strongly rejected the report, with the official spokesperson stating, “The political judgement of Freedom House is as inaccurate and distorted as their maps.” The spokesperson rightly stressed that “India has robust institutions and well-established democratic practices. We do not need sermons, especially from those who cannot get their basics right.”

The reference to the map is to Freedom House putting the territories of the now union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in a category separate from India. This is obnoxious and India has correctly rejected it. Freedom House also excludes PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) from the rest of Pakistan. Of course, all the territories of both the UTs are Indian, including PoK and GB.

The rationale for using separate categories for the UTs and PoK and GB lies in Freedom House’s methodology. While it claims that it takes “no position on separatist or territorial disputes as such, focusing instead on the level of political rights and civil liberties in a given geographical area”, the fact remains that in respect of the UTs, it directly impinges on India’s sovereignty and this can obviously never be acceptable to any Indian. Freedom House puts both UTs and PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan in the ‘not free’ category; thus, giving Pakistan no satisfaction. Hence, its silence on the report. Pakistan has also ignored the report because its own score — and for that matter of all South Asian countries — is much lower than that of India.

Significantly, while Freedom House depends on more than 90 per cent of its funding on US federal government grants, it has also dropped US’s freedom score by 11 points over a decade and has been critical of the erosion of the country’s institutions and has been particularly critical of former President Donald Trump. Nevertheless, the US still remains in the ‘free’ category, though it is considered along with India as a ‘troubled’ democracy.

Worldwide, Freedom House assesses that “the deterioration of democracy began in 2006” and has continued since then. Clearly, Freedom House is dominated by sections of the US liberal opinion and, as such, can be considered as part of the international liberal network.

While India has correctly rejected the report, the fact remains that Freedom House’s perception of India’s current political process and civil liberties is shared by sections of international liberal opinion. This should lead to introspection to ascertain the causes of such perceptions. It would be counterproductive to straightaway dismiss them as motivated and mischievous and not examine why they are arising in these times. Such an examination is also important in the context of India’s soft power.

Soon after assuming power, Prime Minister Narendra Modi indicated that he considered the projection of India’s soft power as an important part of the country’s diplomacy. To this end, he focused on the promotion of yoga. Addressing the United Nations General Assembly in September 2014, Modi said, “Yoga is an invaluable gift of India’s ancient tradition… It is not about exercise but to discover the sense of oneness with yourself, the world and nature. Let us work towards adopting an International Yoga Day.”

India sponsored a UNGA resolution for International Yoga Day which was adopted with overwhelming support. From 2015, June 21 is celebrated the world over as International Yoga Day. Modi is keen also to bring other aspects of India’s ancient heritage to global attention. Some of this is of contemporary relevance, especially the emphasis on the need for harmony between man and nature. So also the stress on tolerance and of acceptance of the validity of all spiritual quests.

There can be no quarrel with the attempt to bring ancient treasures to the world’s notice and to seek to use them as instruments of soft power. However, soft power cannot rely on times past alone and ignore the present realities or the recent past. It is here that the Indian democracy’s role in the soft power mix comes in. Its success and the country’s institutional structure that has striven to protect citizens’ rights and freedoms have been admired widely over the decades. This has been so both in the developing and developed worlds. These are, therefore, valuable assets and essential components of India’s soft power.

Among the country’s institutions, the judiciary evoked great admiration for its independence and commitment to upholding constitutional freedoms and liberties. There is a crucial need to preserve these elements for, a perception of their gathering rust would diminish the country’s soft power.

India has always sought to position itself as a good global citizen which contributes to global good even as it protects its own interests. It has earned respect and goodwill for its technical assistance programmes and its willingness to share its limited resources in times of global crises such as the current pandemic. Its supplies of vaccines even while they are needed domestically are a part of this tradition.

While this meaningfully contributes to India’s soft power, it cannot lead to the attitude that their success means that India need not engage international liberal opinion. While seeking to gain new elements of soft power, the existing ones should not be ignored.