Soon after the US pointed the finger at India for alleged incidents of human rights violations, particularly in Manipur, India has vehemently criticised the State Department report. The Indian Government has denounced the report as “deeply biased” and asserted that it reflects a “significant misunderstanding of the ground realities”. Seeking to show the mirror to the US instead, it questioned the US administration’s response to the recent killing of Indian students on its soil.

The MEA emphasised the “deeply biased” nature of the report, saying the report misrepresents the situation in Manipur and demonstrates a “lack of comprehension” regarding India’s efforts to address human rights issues within its borders. The report, which is not limited only to Manipur, talks about other issues too that have apparently undermined Indian democracy in the recent past.

One of the key points raised in the State Department’s report pertains to the raids conducted by the Indian Income Tax authorities on the offices of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), alleging that the raids extended to journalists not involved in the organisation’s financial affairs. Furthermore, the US report claims that the Indian Government used emergency powers to ban the screening of a BBC-produced documentary. The report highlights the concerns of local human rights organisations, minority political parties and affected communities regarding the Government’s alleged “delayed response” to violence and its failure to provide adequate humanitarian assistance in Manipur.

It also cites instances of disinformation tactics being employed against civil society organisations, religious minorities such as Sikhs and Muslims, and political opposition groups. The Indian reaction to the US report is laudable as it defends and protects the boundaries of Indian sovereignty and sends across the message that no country has any business to meddle in India’s domestic affairs.

The Government must also ensure that foreign powers do not get a chance to sermonise India on human rights. It is an established maxim that human rights issues transcend political boundaries. Besides, the Government should be mindful of criticism by the Indian civil society, which has been airing similar sentiments. They should not be summarily rejected and branded as anti-national and harassed, a routine thing in autocratic systems. Indeed, India’s reaction to the State Department’s report underscores its commitment to safeguarding its sovereignty and ensuring that international assessments accurately reflect the country’s efforts to uphold human rights. India has consistently maintained that it is committed to addressing any legitimate concerns regarding human rights violations through its robust legal framework and democratic processes. In light of these developments, it is imperative for the international stakeholders to engage with India in a constructive dialogue based on mutual respect and understanding.

Soon after the US pointed the finger at India for alleged incidents of human rights violations, particularly in Manipur, India has vehemently criticised the State Department report. The Indian Government has denounced the report as “deeply biased” and asserted that it reflects a “significant misunderstanding of the ground realities”. Seeking to show the mirror to the US instead, it questioned the US administration’s response to the recent killing of Indian students on its soil. The MEA emphasised the “deeply biased” nature of the report, saying the report misrepresents the situation in Manipur and demonstrates a “lack of comprehension” regarding India’s efforts to address human rights issues within its borders.

The report, which is not limited only to Manipur, talks about other issues too that have apparently undermined Indian democracy in the recent past. One of the key points raised in the State Department’s report pertains to the raids conducted by the Indian Income Tax authorities on the offices of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), alleging that the raids extended to journalists not involved in the organisation’s financial affairs. Furthermore, the US report claims that the Indian Government used emergency powers to ban the screening of a BBC-produced documentary. The report highlights the concerns of local human rights organisations, minority political parties and affected communities regarding the Government’s alleged “delayed response” to violence and its failure to provide adequate humanitarian assistance in Manipur.

It also cites instances of disinformation tactics being employed against civil society organisations, religious minorities such as Sikhs and Muslims, and political opposition groups. The Indian reaction to the US report is laudable as it defends and protects the boundaries of Indian sovereignty and sends across the message that no country has any business to meddle in India’s domestic affairs. The Government must also ensure that foreign powers do not get a chance to sermonise India on human rights. It is an established maxim that human rights issues transcend political boundaries. Besides, the Government should be mindful of criticism by the Indian civil society, which has been airing similar sentiments. They should not be summarily rejected and branded as anti-national and harassed, a routine thing in autocratic systems. Indeed, India’s reaction to the State Department’s report underscores its commitment to safeguarding its sovereignty and ensuring that international assessments accurately reflect the country’s efforts to uphold human rights. India has consistently maintained that it is committed to addressing any legitimate concerns regarding human rights violations through its robust legal framework and democratic processes. In light of these developments, it is imperative for the international stakeholders to engage with India in a constructive dialogue based on mutual respect and understanding.