Why Does USCIRF Consistently Target India?
The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has repeatedly placed India in a negative light, recommending its designation as a “Country of Particular Concern (CPC)” despite India’s democratic framework and constitutional protections for religious freedom. This biased stance raises serious questions about USCIRF’s credibility and intent.
USCIRF’s Pattern of Targeting India
1. Disproportionate Focus on India
USCIRF’s reports have consistently portrayed India as a country with severe religious freedom violations, clubbing it with nations like China, North Korea, and Pakistan—countries with state-sponsored religious persecution, authoritarian regimes, and systemic human rights abuses. However, India remains a constitutional democracy with legal provisions to safeguard religious minorities.
The pattern of targeting India becomes more evident when comparing USCIRF’s treatment of other countries. While it often overlooks forced conversions, blasphemy laws, and state-supported discrimination in nations like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, it amplifies even minor incidents in India, creating a distorted image.
2. Reliance on Biased Reports and Western NGOs
USCIRF heavily depends on data from select Western-funded NGOs and activists who have a history of promoting an anti-India narrative. Many of these organizations have been accused of exaggerating communal tensions while ignoring the broader social and historical context.
For instance, USCIRF often cites reports from organizations with ideological leanings that selectively present issues of religious discrimination. The Indian government has repeatedly challenged the credibility of such sources, yet USCIRF continues to use them without verifying their neutrality.
3. Failure to Recognize Ground Realities
Despite India’s diverse and pluralistic society, USCIRF ignores India’s legal framework that protects all religious communities. The country has a robust judiciary, active civil society, and democratic processes that allow religious minorities to seek redress if needed. The presence of multiple religious festivals, institutions, and personal laws is a testament to India’s secular structure.
In contrast, countries like China actively suppress religious freedom by detaining Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps, and Pakistan continues to persecute Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians through blasphemy laws and forced conversions. Yet, USCIRF does not place equal scrutiny on them.
The Gurpatwant Singh Pannu Case and USCIRF’s Misplaced Concerns
Recently, USCIRF expressed concerns over India’s actions against Khalistani separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannu, the leader of Sikhs for Justice (SFJ). Pannu is a designated terrorist under India’s Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and has openly advocated for the violent separation of Punjab from India. He has issued threats against Indian leaders and citizens, including calls for attacks on Hindu temples in Canada and the United States.
Despite his anti-India extremism and terror-linked activities, USCIRF criticized the Indian government’s actions against him, falsely framing it as a violation of religious freedom. This raises serious concerns about whether USCIRF is deliberately supporting separatist and extremist elements under the guise of human rights advocacy.
India’s Response to USCIRF’s Allegations
India has repeatedly dismissed USCIRF’s findings, terming them biased, uninformed, and agenda-driven. The Indian government views these reports as an attempt to interfere in its internal affairs and has refused to engage with USCIRF officials on multiple occasions.
The Indian External Affairs Ministry has strongly rebutted USCIRF’s misrepresentation of facts, emphasizing that India’s democratic institutions, independent judiciary, and constitutional protections ensure religious freedom for all communities.
Possible Motivations Behind USCIRF’s Bias
1. Influence of Anti-India Lobbyists
USCIRF’s focus on India aligns with certain international interest groups, including sections of the Western media, foreign-funded NGOs, and Khalistani sympathizers, who seek to create a negative global perception of India.
2. Geopolitical Considerations
Targeting India, a rising global power, may be a part of a broader geopolitical agenda. India’s independent foreign policy, growing economic strength, and strategic partnerships often do not align with Western interests, leading to pressure tactics through organizations like USCIRF.
3. Selective Human Rights Advocacy
USCIRF’s failure to highlight human rights violations in countries like Pakistan, China, and Afghanistan raises serious concerns about its objectivity. It appears to apply different standards to different nations based on political convenience rather than genuine concern for religious freedom.
Conclusion: A Need for Accountability and Reform
USCIRF’s continuous targeting of India, reliance on biased reports, and failure to acknowledge ground realities have undermined its credibility as a neutral watchdog. While human rights organizations play a crucial role in highlighting injustices, their reports must be fact-based, balanced, and free from geopolitical influence.
The Pannu case further exposes USCIRF’s flawed approach, as it attempts to shield separatists and extremists under the pretext of religious freedom. India, with its secular values and constitutional safeguards, does not need validation from an organization that turns a blind eye to real religious oppression elsewhere.
India’s strong democratic institutions and pluralistic society stand as a testament to its commitment to religious freedom and human rights, making USCIRF’s accusations baseless and politically motivated.
