The now-viral exchange between an Indian diplomat and a Norwegian journalist during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Oslo has triggered predictable global commentary around “trust”, “press freedom”, and “human rights” in India. The journalist’s core questions were blunt: “Why should we trust you?” and “Why doesn’t the Indian Prime Minister take questions from the press?”
The Indian diplomat’s response may have appeared somewhat firm in tone, but the larger debate deserves deeper reflection beyond social media outrage and selective moral posturing.
The first issue lies in the very framing of the question: international relations are not fundamentally built on “trust” or even proclaimed “values”. They are built on interests, issues, the common good, strategic convergence and a mutually respected rules-based order. States engage each other not because they trust one another unconditionally, but because they recognise the necessity of coexistence, cooperation and stability.
Ironically, the very Western powers that often lecture the developing world on democratic values today appear deeply divided and increasingly inconsistent in upholding the same standards they advocate globally. In a fragile and polarised international order, selective interventions, unilateral sanctions, regime-change policies and the unrestrained use of military power have weakened the credibility of the “rules-based order” that the West itself created after the Second World War. The perception across large parts of the Global South is increasingly that “might is right” has once again become the dominant geopolitical principle.
Against this backdrop, India’s democratic journey deserves a more balanced and intellectually honest assessment.
India is not a recent artificial construct held together by force. It is a civilisational state that emerged from colonial rule through a freedom struggle rooted in democratic aspiration, pluralism and constitutionalism. Despite the extraordinary diversity of language, ethnicity, religion and culture, India has preserved both its civilisational continuity and democratic framework while managing the aspirations of 1.4 billion people.
India’s human rights, democratic freedoms and legal protections are enshrined in its Constitution. Every citizen, irrespective of caste, creed, gender or faith, has recourse to an independent judiciary, electoral participation and constitutional remedies. This reality is often overlooked in simplistic international narratives shaped by selective NGO reports or external ideological lenses that fail to fully comprehend the scale and complexity of India.
Critics also ignore the remarkable socioeconomic transformation underway in India. Over 600 million people have reportedly been lifted out of poverty in the last decade through welfare delivery, infrastructure expansion, financial inclusion and digital governance. Importantly, free rations, housing schemes, sanitation programmes and healthcare initiatives are not distributed on the basis of religion or caste. India’s welfare architecture reaches citizens irrespective of faith or identity.
Equally significant is the social mobility visible across Indian public life. Some of India’s most influential corporate groups, institutions and public figures continue to be led by citizens belonging to non-majoritarian faiths. This is not an exception manufactured for optics; it is part of the lived reality of a deeply diverse society.
India’s entertainment industry offers perhaps the clearest cultural example. Bollywood, one of the most influential instruments of Indian soft power, has long been dominated by actors, musicians and artists from multiple faiths whose fan followings exceed the populations of many European countries, including Norway itself. Such phenomena cannot exist in a deeply exclusionary society. They are indicators of social acceptance, equal opportunity and cultural integration visible to the world.
At the same time, democracies must remain open to scrutiny and debate. Questions around media access and political communication are legitimate in any democracy, including India. A politician’s response in Oslo may perhaps have been more nuanced and politically calibrated than a diplomat’s institutional defence. It could also have emphasised India’s democratic resilience, its constitutional foundations and the success of the Indian diaspora, many of whom today occupy leadership positions across the liberal democratic world.
Indeed, India’s global diaspora remains among the country’s strongest ambassadors. From technology and academia to business and public office, Indians have integrated successfully into Western democracies while contributing meaningfully to their adopted societies. Their success itself reflects the values of education, adaptability, pluralism and democratic participation nurtured within India.
The Norway episode ultimately reflects a larger global tension: the gap between how parts of the West perceive India and how India increasingly sees itself. India no longer views itself through the lens of post-colonial insecurity or external certification. It seeks engagement based on mutual respect, sovereign equality and recognition of its unique scale, complexity and democratic evolution. Trust, after all, cannot be demanded selectively. It must emerge from consistency, reciprocity and the willingness of all sides to introspect with equal honesty.
