In March this year the USCIRF (US Commission on International Religious Freedom) released its annual report. On India it recommended, “Designate India as a ‘country of particular concern,’ for engaging in and tolerating systematic, ongoing, and egregious religious freedom violations.” It added, “Impose targeted sanctions on individuals and entities, such as Vikash Yadav and RAW, for their culpability in severe violations of religious freedom by freezing their assets and/or barring their entry into the United States.”

For the past few years, near similar recommendations on India have been made by the commission. The Indian government rejected the report. The MEA spokesperson mentioned that the USCIRF “should (itself) be designated as an entity of concern”, adding that the institution has “persistently attempted to misrepresent isolated incidents and cast aspersions on India’s vibrant multicultural society reflect a deliberate agenda rather than a genuine concern for religious freedom.” The fact that the USCIRF is biased is well known. There is no mention of killings of thousands of Palestinians by Israel, backed by the US, solely because it does not suit Washington.

Advertisement

Similar is the silence on death of hundreds of innocent Muslims due to the US’s relentless airstrikes in largely Muslim majority nations. The US is worse on religious freedom than most nations on which USCIRF comments adversely. President Donald Trump is imposing visa restrictions mainly on those from predominantly Muslim nations. A similar ban by him in 2017 was labeled as ‘Muslim ban’ by his aides. On all this, the commission is silent, while about India it bases its assessment on a few random incidents. The USCIRF is not the only organization which displays an anti-India bias.

The recently released World Happiness Index placed India at 118 out of 147 nations. Surprisingly, nations like terrorist dominated Libya, bankrupt Venezuela, starving Rwanda, terrorism infested Iraq, Lebanon and Pakistan as also war-ravaged Ukraine are way ahead in happiness. It leaves one to question the credibility of these assessments. World democracy indices, issued by institutions in different countries, invariably points fingers at Indian democracy. Freedom House, a US based institution, terms Indian democracy as ‘partially free,’ V-Dem from Sweden calls it an ‘electoral autocracy,’ and the Economist Intelligence Unit from UK labels it as a ‘flawed democracy.’ While European institutions accuse India, the continent itself faces accusations of being anti-democratic.

JD Vance, the US Vice President, accused Europe, in its own backyard in Munich, of stifling democracy and free speech. The world applauded India’s conduct of its 2024 elections, where record numbers (larger than the population of Europe or North America) voted, while these fake assessing bodies term India’s democratic model as anything but a democracy. Indian election results were announced within a day, with zero violence, intimidation or complaints of rigging. Compare this to weeks for the US to ultimately close its presidential poll amid claims of voting irregularities and rigging. Trump had recently praised India for ‘tying voter identification to a biometric database.’ Threats to democracy are more in the West than in India.

In the US, Trump faced multiple court cases on frivolous grounds to prevent him from returning to the White House. In France, the leading opposition challenger to President Macron, Marine Le Pen, has been awarded a two-year sentence and banned from standing for elections. In Brazil, former President, Jair Bolsonaro, is being tried and could possibly face a 12-year sentence. In Romania, two far-right contenders, C lin Georgescu and Diana o oac , have been blocked from contesting forthcoming May elections. So much for free European democracies. However, these are not flawed democracies, but India, where no previous head of state has been charged, is an autocracy.

Such illogical assessments by global bodies make them a laughing stock and highlight their biased views. The Indian government rightly rejects these reports claiming it does not need sermons on democracy from others. External Affairs Minister Dr Jaishankar had aptly termed these institutions as ‘self-appointed custodians of the world who find it very difficult to stomach that somebody in India is not looking for their approval.’ While there are flaws in the Indian democratic model, it is far better than most nations. The Global Hunger Index of 2024 placed India at 105. Above India were African nations facing food shortages including Djibouti, Tanzania, Congo, Burkina Faso and Namibia.

Namibia even planned to cull elephants to feed its starving populace. Sri Lanka, to whom India donated foodgrains, was at 56. This raises questions about the methodology adopted by these institutions. The World Press Freedom index places India at 161, while Pakistan, where journalists disappear or are killed for criticizing the army is at 152. Even Turkey, where reporters are arrested, beaten and deported for covering opposition protests is ranked higher than India. The reason is that Reporters without Borders, which does this assessment, is linked to George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. Institutions which judge nations are Western.

For them, a former colony, known for snake charmers and beggars, to be shining on the world stage and dominate global space is unacceptable. Further, India refuses to succumb to Western pressures. It is now a global investment destination, where world leaders rush for trade deals. Hence, attacks impacting India’s performance in every sphere are intended to show it in poor light, attempting to decelerate its growth. No wonder the Indian government announced in 2024 that it plans to issue its own global democratic index, work on which has commenced. Most global institutional ratings are subjective.

They follow a pattern involving questionnaires sent to select ‘so-called’ experts as also limited public opinion polls. In India’s case, the ‘so-called’ experts are common to most global bodies and largely against the current leadership. Not a single institution lists names of its experts or its data size.

These ratings, though biased, have an impact. Multinational corporations and global lending agencies consider them prior to investments or grant of loans. Similarly, they impact the nation’s stature, especially when it seeks a larger role for itself on the global stage, including a permanent seat at the UNSC. The intent of these agencies is to display India as an unreliable destination and a nation which does not follow what it preaches. Global bodies would prefer a subservient India, which it will never be. Thankfully, their impact thus far has not dented India’s image as much as they had hoped.

(The writer is a retired Major-General of the Indian Army.)