Standing up to America

Vivek Katju

Ex-Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs

AT the conclusion of the fourth round of the India-US 2+2 dialogue in Washington on April 11, Raksha Mantri Rajnath Singh and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar — and their US counterparts — Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin — addressed a press conference. Blinken said, ‘We also share a commitment to our shared democratic values, such as protecting human rights. We regularly engage with our Indian partners on these shared values and to that end we are monitoring some recent concerning developments in India, including the rise in human rights abuses in India by some government, police and prison officials’. It was certainly discourteous of Blinken to criticise India’s human rights record in the presence of his guests.

A nuanced approach to meet external criticism of domestic policies must be pursued. This includes assertive postures, but never exclusively so.

Neither Singh nor Jaishankar responded to his comments during the press conference. However, they themselves and the government, too, obviously decided that they could not let these remarks go uncontested. On April 12, a day after the press conference, Jaishankar told the media, ‘People are entitled to have views about us. But we are also equally entitled to have views about their views and about the interests and the lobbies and the vote banks which drive that.’ He added that India also had views on ‘other people’s human rights situation’. His remarks gained wide coverage in the mainstream and social media. In the latter section of public opinion, these were especially welcomed as evidence of the ‘new India’ which does not take criticism lying down. And Jaishankar was hailed by many in India for upholding India’s honour.

For all its ‘caring’ for universal human rights, the US has an imperfect domestic record and has maintained very close ties with regimes and dictators who have been some of the greatest violators of rights. Whenever there is a clash between US interests and human rights, the latter are abandoned. The system of monitoring global human rights by the US began in the early 1970s. It was initially linked to US foreign aid because there was sentiment in Congress that countries that violated human rights should not receive assistance. This scheme was expanded during President Jimmy Carter’s administration to include all countries. This was an attempt to use human rights as a propaganda weapon against the Soviet bloc. It was also directed against other states considered inimical to US interests. The end of the Cold War with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 did not see the end of this judgmental attitude towards other countries on human rights. The weaponisation of human rights was strengthened with adding a focus on religious freedom. At present, the administration devotes financial and human resources on rights and religious freedom reports. They have become instruments of US foreign policy, at a minimum, to embarrass and pressure states.

The Modi government’s combativeness in responding to western criticism of India’s human rights record is part of the tradition set by previous governments. I was present at a press conference addressed in May 1981 in Dubai by PM Indira Gandhi during her visit to the UAE. A Caucasian correspondent asked her about communal relations in India; the obvious backdrop was the Meenakshipuram conversions of February that year which had led to an outcry in the country. She replied that communal issues were not unique to India. She soberly asked: ‘What is happening in Northern Ireland?’ And who can forget her Delhi speech on December 12, 1971, during the Bangladesh war, when reports grew of the US seventh fleet being ordered to proceed to the Bay of Bengal?

To revert to Blinken and Jaishankar’s comments, in both cases a large purpose of the remarks was to address domestic constituencies in both countries. In the US sections of the Democratic party, especially of the far-left persuasion, have been critical of what they perceive have been discriminatory Modi government policies towards the minorities. These sections have been vocal and have leaned on the Biden administration to take up these issues with India. In this country, too, there is a large section of public opinion which demands that the ‘new India’ should give it right back to its critics. They do not believe in simply showing indifference to outside criticism but desire muscular responses.

Beyond trading media comments, a government has to also decide if it should ignore its foreign critics or engage them. It may be fruitless to seek to dialogue with countries or foreign opinion makers who are inherently inimical or biased against India. Experience shows that talking to them is often pointless and even worse exchanges may generate bitterness. Pakistan obviously falls in the category of such countries. US Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, who recently visited Pakistan and criticised Indian approaches on J&K and other issues, is a person with such settled anti-India positions that she would be best ignored.

There is however a serious global civil society which has ideological orientations of different kinds but cannot be construed to be inherently biased on India. Elements of such civil society are found in the academia, in the media and among them are persons who have taken lifelong interest in India. Such sections should be engaged. They should not be treated with disdain even if they are troubled by some policies and actions of the government. Indeed, the country’s ancient tradition of ‘samvaad’ demands such engagement too.

A nuanced approach to meet external criticism of domestic policies has always to be pursued. This includes assertive postures, but never exclusively so.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.