Two recent developments have drawn significant media attention to alleged discrimination and violence against certain vulnerable sections of Indian society.
The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) expressed grave concern over reports of large-scale violations against vulnerable populations. In a related development, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) came out strongly against the US visit of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat.
Accusing the Sangh Parivar of perpetrating violent attacks against religious minorities, the USCIRF has sought targeted sanctions against RSS members and Indian officials complicit in religious freedom violations, including the revocation of the RSS leader's visa.
There is a qualitative difference between the two organisations voicing concerns about discrimination in India. The CERD is an international body of independent experts that monitors discrimination in member nations. The USCIRF, on the other hand, is a US federal government entity established by the US Congress as a bipartisan body to monitor, analyse and report on religious freedom abroad.
The former carries relatively more credibility than the latter, even more so because of the US tendency to use such entities as a diplomatic tool. But it becomes a bargaining chip when Donald Trump’s corporate transactional model collides with its own dubious “international religious freedom” policy based on particular Judeo-Christian principles.
There was a considerable overlap between the findings of the UN watchdog and the US Commission regarding purported discrimination and violence in India. However, key differences existed as well. While both reported mob violence against Muslims and Christians, the UN body also brought within its purview vulnerable groups such as Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, including Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, particularly Dalits, and non-citizens.
In the past, India rejected all the findings of the USCIRF, labelling it a biased entity with a political agenda to misrepresent facts and peddle a motivated narrative against New Delhi. In fact, the MEA routinely went one step further by asking it to address human rights issues in the US itself.
India has meted out similar treatment to the UN body too, and the Minister of External Affairs debunked its findings by calling them entirely politically motivated. There is a palpable sense of a breach of trust or being taken by surprise. Thinking it was a routine review under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, India engaged with it by sending a high-level delegation led by its indefatigable legal troubleshooter, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
According to the MEA, during the review meeting itself, the delegation had already rejected sweeping generalisations, unsubstantiated allegations, and the tendency to exceed the Convention’s mandate.
The Narendra Modi government has been successful in leveraging India’s diplomatic clout in averting any US action based on USCIRF reports. Though the UN body is perceived to be a paper tiger, India cannot be dismissive, as its censure could have a bearing on the country’s political stature in the eyes of the world.
India is well within its sovereign rights to oppose any external attempt to meddle in its internal affairs or use domestic issues as a tool to exert pressure or undue influence. Equally, India needs to act decisively to avoid giving any room to question its governance.