India questions the OHCHR’s selective approach to human rights, raising concerns over global double standards and impartiality
In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, American civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” But what if that “anywhere” becomes selective? When international human rights institutions scrutinise India but fail to demonstrate the same consistency in confronting terrorism and state violence, they risk undermining the very principles they claim to uphold.
Human rights are universal. They cannot be the exclusive concern of powerful nations, nor can they become instruments for political pressure against countries whose domestic policies do not align with the preferences of certain international commentators. Yet, the recurring controversy surrounding the United Nations human rights machinery raises an uncomfortable question: Are human rights being defended impartially, or are they increasingly becoming a tool of selective outrage?
The Government of India’s recent response to a statement by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has once again brought this question into focus. New Delhi challenged what it considers an unwarranted interference in India’s internal affairs and questioned the institution’s selective approach to public criticism. India’s objection deserves serious consideration, not because the country should be immune from international scrutiny, but because an institution that demands accountability must itself demonstrate consistency, impartiality and intellectual honesty.
The Indian government made a pointed observation that deserves wider attention: “We also note that the OHCHR has an approach of extreme selectivity when it comes to public positions. Violent responses to protests in our neighbourhood have gone uncommented, as indeed have law enforcement actions in its own vicinity. Such double standards only erode the credibility of its standing and contribute to the loss of faith in multilateralism.” This statement strikes at the heart of the credibility crisis facing international institutions. If reports of police action, detention or restrictions on protesters in India attract immediate public commentary, why should comparable incidents elsewhere not invite equally vigorous scrutiny?
The question is not whether the UN should speak about India. It is whether it applies its principles consistently. Human rights cannot be defended through selective indignation, where the identity of the country involved determines the intensity of international condemnation. India is the world’s largest democracy, governed by a constitution that guarantees fundamental rights and provides institutional mechanisms for addressing grievances. Its judiciary, elected legislatures, media and civil society offer multiple avenues for public debate and accountability. These institutions are not beyond criticism, but their existence and functioning must be acknowledged when assessing the country’s human rights record.
Allegations of rights violations must be investigated fairly. Unlawful detention, excessive use of force and the suppression of peaceful dissent cannot be justified merely by invoking national security. Equally, allegations should not be treated as established facts without examining the available evidence, legal circumstances and broader context. The problem arises when international commentary appears to offer conclusions before adequately considering these distinctions.
One of the most troubling aspects of international human rights discourse is the inadequate attention sometimes given to victims of terrorism, religious extremism and ideological violence. Terrorism is not merely a security challenge. It is a fundamental assault on human rights, beginning with the most basic right of all: the right to life. When terrorists deliberately murder civilians, target people because of their religious identity or use violence to intimidate communities, they attack the very foundations of a free society. India has experienced the devastating consequences of cross-border terrorism for decades. The 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament and the Pahalgam terror attack of April 2025 illustrate the continuing threat posed by terrorism to Indian citizens. Yet, international discussions about human rights often appear more focused on questioning the actions of the Indian state than on sustaining public attention on the victims of terrorism and the ideologies that motivate such violence.
This imbalance deserves scrutiny. Where is the same sustained urgency when Islamist extremist organisations murder civilians, persecute religious minorities or use terror to impose their ideological ambitions? Where is the consistent emphasis on the rights of victims, the security of vulnerable communities and the accountability of those responsible? To be clear, the condemnation of Islamist terrorism is not a condemnation of Islam or Muslims as a whole. Terrorism must be judged by its actions and ideology, not used to stigmatise an entire religious community. The principle is straightforward: no religious, political or ideological justification can excuse the deliberate targeting of innocent people. The UN and its human rights institutions must recognise that protecting human rights also means protecting people from terrorism, religious persecution and organised violence. A framework that examines state action but fails to give comparable attention to non-state perpetrators risks presenting an incomplete picture of the human rights crisis.
India’s insistence on sovereignty is not a licence to violate fundamental rights, nor does national security justify every state action. However, India’s constitutional institutions, independent judiciary and democratic mechanisms deserve due consideration. International bodies must scrutinise domestic issues responsibly, not appear to prejudge them through selective public statements. The OHCHR’s credibility depends on applying consistent standards, regardless of geography or political alignment. When similar incidents receive different levels of attention, legitimate human rights advocacy risks being perceived as political posturing. The OHCHR must explain transparently why certain cases attract public condemnation while others remain unaddressed. What criteria guide its interventions? How does it verify allegations? Does it scrutinise comparable violations across regions with equal rigour? And are victims of terrorism, Islamist extremism and religious persecution given the same attention as those affected by state action? These are legitimate questions of accountability—not attempts to silence criticism.
The United Nations was established to promote peace, cooperation and respect for human rights. Its institutions can play a constructive role in identifying abuses, encouraging dialogue and supporting the protection of vulnerable populations. But their effectiveness depends on public trust. That trust cannot be sustained through selective outrage. If the international community expects India and other sovereign states to respond seriously to human rights concerns, international institutions must also be willing to examine their own inconsistencies.
