If there’s one issue that makes India bristle, it’s international scrutiny of its human rights record. For years, the country has positioned itself as the world’s largest democracy, but critics argue that this claim rings increasingly hollow as civil liberties face sustained attacks.
At London’s Chatham House, where India’s global role was being discussed, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar fielded questions on Ukraine, the Middle East, the economy, and his country’s reliance on the US dollar despite its BRICS membership. But when the conversation turned to human rights, his composure visibly shifted. India’s top diplomat grew impatient—his response momentarily unsteady as he conceded that no nation was perfect. However, the hesitation was brief. He quickly returned to his usual stance, brushing aside concerns over human rights violations that have long cast a shadow over India’s democratic credentials.
When The Express Tribune raised concerns from a dozen advocacy groups about declining civil liberties under the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) decade in power, India’s foreign minister was quick to brush them aside. Quipping that his response would be “terse,” he seemed keen to move on. But Bronwen Maddox, the moderator and director of Chatham House, pushed Jaishankar to engage, making it difficult for him to sidestep the issue.
“I’m going to take a different track because there’s quite a lot online about human rights,” said Maddox. “Hammad Sarfraz, speaking for many here, points out that India positions itself as the world’s largest democracy, yet concerns about its human rights record are mounting. How does India plan to address these issues? Does it acknowledge any shortcomings?”
Jaishankar, visibly irked, his forehead creased with frustration, initially brushed off the question, saying, “A lot of this is politically motivated.” Maddox was quick to interject. “Political is not a bad word—it’s how people express their desires for their country.”
Conceding the point, Jaishankar took long pauses before readjusting his response. “Allow me to complete,” the Indian foreign minister said, his tone unusually low, even by his own standards. “For political reasons, we have often been on the receiving end of many expressions and, at times, even campaigns on human rights.”
His response was inconsistent, veering between brief acknowledgment and his usual denial. “We listen to these concerns,” he continued. “We are not perfect—nobody is—and there may be situations that require redress. But I would argue that, if one looks around the world, to be very honest, India has a very strong human rights record. As a democracy, a credible democracy where people still have faith—growing faith, in fact—where the state has been fair in its treatment of citizens, any sweeping concerns about human rights are misplaced.”
While India’s top diplomat was poised to close the session with a grandiose vision of his country as a rising power, the question about ongoing violations of civil liberties in the final moments disrupted the narrative, shifting the focus from international stature to human rights concerns at home.
His dismissal of concerns about the rights situation comes a month after leading advocacy groups—including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and Reporters Without Borders—sent a joint document to the EU College of Commissioners and the Commission president ahead of their visit to New Delhi. The letter outlined what they described as the BJP government’s assault on institutions, dissent, and minorities, amounting to a ‘profound’ human rights crisis in India.
In light of Jaishankar’s contradictory statements on India’s civil liberties record, The Express Tribune reached out to Claudio Francavilla, the Associate Director for EU advocacy at Human Rights Watch (HRW), who has been actively engaging with the European Commission on the matter.
Francavilla argued that while no government welcomes human rights criticism, dismissing concerns as ‘politically motivated’ would do little to address the widespread abuses documented by India’s civil society, international NGOs, and UN experts. He acknowledged Jaishankar’s point about poor human rights records in India’s neighborhood, but stressed that this did not justify India’s abusive and authoritarian approach. “Respect for human rights should be a race to the top, not to the bottom,” he said.
On Jaishankar’s attempts to portray India as a leading democracy in the region, Francavilla, who recently briefed the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights about ongoing violations in the country, remarked, “A ‘leading democracy’ should act as one, and lead by example. Its stature will be judged not by the size of its elections, but by its treatment of minorities, critics and journalists, and by the health of its democratic institutions.”
Francavilla pointed to widespread abuses and discrimination under Modi’s tenure as prime minister, and previously as Gujarat’s chief minister, as ample reason to question the ruling party’s commitment to democratic values. He urged India to release all individuals imprisoned solely for peacefully voicing criticism, to allow civil society to operate freely, and to welcome UN experts into the country. “Persistent repression and blanket dismissal of concerns are the opposite of how a leading democracy should behave,” he concluded.
