Does the U.S. Have the Right to Comment on India’s Religious Freedom?

India Alleges ‘Political Agenda’ in Response to a U.S. Panel’s Critical Report

Newsreel Asia Insight #327
October 5, 2024

The photo is for representational purposes only.

A report on India by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) indicates a decline in religious freedom, particularly during and following the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The Indian government has rejected the report, labelling USCIRF as biased and politically motivated, though without addressing the specifics of its content.

The U.S. commission compiles and releases an annual report on religious freedom violations globally. On Oct. 2, it released an update to the India 2024 report, which was released in August and recommended to the U.S. Department of State that India be designated a “Country of Particular Concern,” or CPC. It’s a designation that applies to countries that are judged to have engaged in or tolerated “systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom.”

One of the most significant implications of a CPC designation is the potential for economic sanctions. The U.S. government can choose to impose sanctions on countries that do not take steps to address the violations. These sanctions can range from restrictions on economic aid to more severe trade and financial restrictions.

Considering the implications, India’s reaction is understandable, but its outright rejection of the report’s contents and calling USCIRF biased or politically motivated is not.

2024 Report and Update

If you examine the content of the USCIRF 2024 report and the update, you would realise that they rely heavily on the media coverage in India. And the narrative presented by it also closely mirrors that found in several Indian newspapers, essentially corroborating the key issues mentioned above.

The USCIRF update stated that the Indian government enforced discriminatory legislation and propagated hate speech, focusing on moves like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the inauguration of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, which was followed by escalation of attacks on religious minorities.

It also said that authorities used “bulldozer justice” to demolish properties of religious minorities under the pretext of removing illegal structures.

Further it referred to “anti-conversion laws” and “love jihad,” stating that authorities arrested several Christians and Muslims for alleged forced conversions and passed legislation in multiple states to strengthen these laws.

High officials used discriminatory and inflammatory rhetoric against Muslims, accusing them of threatening Hinduism and falsely claiming that opposition leaders would impose Sharia law, the report added.

Furthermore, USCIRF said the government targeted civil society and faith-based organisations, using the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) to restrict and control their operations, leading to the cancellation of thousands of registrations since 2012.

According to USCIRF, authorities also targeted journalists, academics and activists documenting religious freedom violations, engaging in surveillance and threats.

Criticism by a Foreign Entity

If the USCIRF’s documentation and corroboration of media reports are based on prevailing perceptions in India, albeit contested by the government, the foundation of the Indian government’s objections might be rooted in the belief that a foreign entity should not publicly express these issues.

Reacting to the update, the Official Spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs, Randhir Jaiswal said, “Our views on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) are well known. It is a biased organisation with a political agenda. It continues to misrepresent facts and peddles a motivated narrative about India,” as quoted by India Today.

The USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan federal government body established by the U.S. Congress under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. It is tasked with monitoring the universal right to freedom of religion or belief abroad. Therefore, USCIRF reviews religious freedom violations and makes policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State and Congress.

While questions about the neutrality of the U.S. government and/or Congress do exist, the USCIRF has largely maintained its impartiality, frequently speaking out against the U.S. government when it refuses to follow USCIRF’s recommendations regarding CPC designations–Nigeria and India, for instance–or grants exemptions to CPC countries for strategic purposes–Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Vietnam, for example.

The U.S. State Department has not designated India as a CPC despite recommendations from the USCIRF in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023. International relations experts suggest that India’s strategic importance as a key ally in Asia, particularly in the United States’ competition with China for regional influence, may have influenced this decision.

The International Religious Freedom Act was established with the principle that U.S. foreign engagement should reflect the country’s commitment to human rights, of which freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental part. The Act mandates that the U.S. government integrate religious freedom into its foreign policy and consider the status of religious freedom when making decisions about foreign aid, security assistance and diplomatic interactions.

In principle, the intention of this Act looks clean, as human rights are a legitimate concern of the international community, especially when a country has committed to engaging with the global community through the United Nations and its various conventions and treaties.

It’s just like a business choosing not to engage with another business (B2B) based on its poor employee treatment record, or a citizen refusing to buy groceries from a store known for mistreating its staff.