Representative Image
The Indian Minorities Foundation (IMF) on June 27, 2024, strongly condemned the USCIRF International Religious Freedom Report on Bharat, accusing the religious watchdog of attempting to distort the image of India by likening the Indian government to authoritarian regimes like Afghanistan, DPRK, Russia and China. As a result, the IMF asserted that the religious watchdog overlooked India’s democratic framework, vibrant civil society, and pluralism.
The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has once again found itself on the wrong side of the world’s largest democracy with its most recent report once again attempting to designate India as a country of particular concern (CPC). It is noteworthy that the USCIRF’s misdirected activism to target India has repeatedly failed to obtain the US State Department’s approval with the department’s refusal to accord CPC designation since 2020.
While several questions arise on the credibility of the USCIRF, perhaps the most pertinent question is that merits deeper examination if the USCIRF is conducting itself as an agent of conflict rather than an instrument of harmony as it purportedly claims so.
The USCIRF’s attempts to lump and place India, the world’s largest democracy with countries like Afghanistan, Cuba, Russia, China and North Korea highlights the misdirected activism nature. Its failure to recognise that the world’s largest democracy not only has a robust constitutional framework, a vibrant civil society and a long history of pluralism is a telling commentary on how the USCIRF has lost its way over the years.
Unlike the authoritarian regimes mentioned, Indian Federalism with its autonomy to states on matters such as law enforcement gives different religions the constitutional freedom to formulate and enforce laws in a manner no different to American federalism. Flawed comparisons with non-democracies highlights the organisations failure to understand the nuanced reality of the Indian religious freedom landscape and discredits genuine concerns about the human rights violations globally.
It is puzzling that the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, in his remarks at a recent event in Washington C spoke about an increase in anti-conversion laws, when in reality no new laws were passed by any state during the focus period of the report. His broad sweep reference to the hate speech is at odds with the kind of hateful speech targeted towards India and its elected leaders that routinely emerges from North America these days.
This hateful speech includes instances that have glorified violence and celebrated the assassination of an Indian Prime Minister. It would appear perhaps that a line blurs between free speech and hate speech depending on the nature of the country and its origin. Unsubstantiated references in his remarks to demolition of homes and places of worship for the members of the minority faith communities fail to note that the few strains of demolition had little to do with religion and everything to do with illegal constructions in violation of the rule of law.
Surely, it is not the case of American diplomacy that the rule of law in the world’s largest democracy ought to be selectively applied on the basis of religious identity. Further, the USCIRF Report seem to be unduly influenced by the NGOs and the activists who have been on the receiving end of the regulations that have nothing to do with religious identity or religion itself.
By mixing up the secular issue of the strict monitoring the foreign fundings to the NGOs under the FCRA regulations with allegations of violence against minorities the USCIRF report exposes itself as battling foreign funding to NGO activism in India. Ironically the preamble of the report dedicates an entire section to what it labels as malign foreign influence. Perhaps the irony was lost on the authors that USCIRF own actions in support of foreign funding to NGO activists would be no less than malign foreign influence.
By giving a communal twist to the ethnic minorities in Manipur, the USCIRF report crosses a very dangerous line with its patently false and communal labelling of Meitei as Hindu and Kuki as Christian to further exacerbate ethnic fault lines in Manipur. As noted by the Imphal Press in a report of October 2023 quoting multiple church leaders from the Meitei community, the ethnic violence made ono exception for religious affiliations.
Two issues make it abundantly clear that the USCIRF judgements on religious freedom have no respect for India’s unity and territorial integrity. The first has to do with the comments on Kashmir in the context of Article 370. USCIRF fails to recognise that the revocation of Article 370 was aimed at integrating Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of India, fostering economic development and ensuring equal rights for all residents. The move was also upheld by the Indian Supreme Court reflecting its constitutionality while the Indian Election Commission has already started the process of holding elections in the region as a step towards restoring statehood.
The second instance has to do with the Khalistani Movement and the USCIRF parroting a new catchphrase that has been routinely being used by the advocates of Khalistan – transnational repression. It is almost as if the world’s largest democracy is obliged to patronise those who advocate for destabilising Indian territorial integrity from beyond its borders. By seeking to falsely frame the issue as one as that of religious freedom, the USCIRF comments sum up al that is wrong with its mission.
Since 2000, the USCIRF has time and again attempted to designate India as a country of particular concern (CPC). However, the US State Department has refused to endorse this designation. The State Department’s refusal is a telling indicator that the USCIRF claims do not align with the on-ground realities and nuanced understanding of India’s commitment to religious freedom and democratic values. The USCIRF appears to operate with a magnifying lens searching for violations across the globe while losing the sight of the bigger picture of harmony and co-existence in many societies.
Its approach raises a critical question: Is the USCIRF an instrument of peace or agent of conflict? By focusing disproportionally on perceived negatives and ignoring the broader context of religious freedom and social harmony within the world’s largest democracy, the USCIRF risks exacerbating tensions rather than fostering understanding and resolution. The USCIRF misdirected activism on religious freedom in India seems to be case of American diplomacy making a mistake reminiscent of the early years of the World War-II when the fighter aircrafts of the Allied Forces failed to tell friend from foe.
Leave a Comment