Should India Be So Sensitive to Foreign Criticism?

National Sovereignty Vs. International Human Rights Commitments

Newsreel Asia Insight #15
Oct. 16, 2023

India’s objection to the European Parliament’s recent resolution on ethnic violence in Manipur suggests that New Delhi fails to grasp the essential equilibrium between national sovereignty and international human rights commitments in the modern world.

Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla protested against the resolution in a meeting with Nicola Beer, European Union Vice-President, on Oct. 14, on the margins of the G20 Parliamentary Speakers Summit. He emphasised that India is a sovereign state, and its domestic issues should not become subjects of international discourse, The Indian Express reported.

Passed in July, the European Parliament’s resolution specifically addressed the human rights situation in India, making particular mention of the ongoing violence in Manipur and urging Indian authorities to act against ethnic and religious violence.

The unrest in Manipur has persisted for almost five and a half months, surpassing 150 days. During this period, hundreds have died, thousands of homes have been razed and tens of thousands have been forced to flee. Despite its inability to safeguard lives and allegations of its police force committing violence against a minority group, the current state government continues to hold office.

The debate over the legitimacy of foreign entities criticising internal affairs of another nation isn’t new.

Sovereignty traditionally implies a state’s complete autonomy to govern itself without outside intervention. While this suggests that issues within a state’s borders are mainly its own responsibility, human rights are considered universal principles that apply to all people, making them a concern for everyone.

International agreements like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which was adopted in 1948, aim to uphold these rights. It’s not a binding treaty but serves as a foundational document, laying down the principle that human rights apply to all individuals, irrespective of nationality or state sovereignty.

Another framework, called Responsibility to Protect (R2P), was introduced by the United Nations in 2005, seeking to ensure that the international community never fails to halt the mass atrocity crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. It stipulates that if a state is clearly failing to protect its citizens, the international community has an obligation to undertake suitable collective “action” promptly and decisively, in line with the UN Charter.

While not legally binding, R2P offers a legal base for the international community to make efforts aimed at preventing mass atrocities, as long as the proposed action gains UN Security Council approval. Critics argue that R2P can be, and has been, exploited to justify interventions motivated more by geopolitical aims than by genuine human rights issues. However, legal precedent maintains that the possibility of misuse is not deemed a valid rationale to abandon such a provision.

Further, the Universal Periodic Review is a mechanism of the Human Rights Council that calls for each UN Member State to undergo a peer review of its human rights records every 4.5 years. India is an active participant in this process.

Interestingly, India itself has not been silent on human rights issues abroad.

On Oct. 12, two days before Birla’s objection to the European Parliament’s resolution on India and amid the ongoing war between Israel and Palestine, New Delhi endorsed the revival of direct talks for a peaceful settlement between Israel and Palestine.

“Our policy in this regard has been long-standing and consistent. India has always advocated the resumption of direct negotiations towards establishing a sovereign, independent, and viable State of Palestine living within secure and recognised borders, side by side at peace with Israel,” India’s Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement, according to Mint.

From Israel’s perspective, this advocacy could also be construed as “external interference.”

New Delhi has, in the past, also expressed concerns about the human rights situation in other South and Southeast Asian countries.

India has expressed concern particularly with respect to the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka. During and after the Sri Lankan Civil War, New Delhi called for a political solution that respects the rights of all communities.

India has voiced concerns about the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar. India has offered humanitarian assistance to Bangladesh, which has received a large number of Rohingya refugees.

India has consistently emphasised the need for human rights protections in Afghanistan, particularly for women and minorities, as part of a broader, stable governance framework.

If the international framework allows for foreign “intervention” to protect vulnerable populations from human rights abuses, it certainly legitimises discussions or criticisms about a country’s internal situation concerning the safety of at-risk groups. After all, extensive discussion and inquiry are required before UN member states can greenlight an intervention.