According to media reports, the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India has dismissed the United States presidential advisor on religious freedom Rashad Hussain’s comment that religious freedom includes the ability to choose one’s religious attire. The MEA claimed that the matter is sub judice, and that Hussain’s remarks arose out of ignorance of India’s constitutional mechanisms and institutions.
Religious freedom includes the ability to choose one’s religious attire. The Indian state of Karnataka should not determine permissibility of religious clothing. Hijab bans in schools violate religious freedom and stigmatize and marginalize women and girls.
— Amb. at Large for International Religious Freedom (@IRF_Ambassador) February 11, 2022
A similar remonstration on this issue of hijabs in schools was also conveyed formally to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. A rebuttal on the similar lines was earlier given to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom that had recommended for some years that India be designated a country ‘of particular concern’. At that time, India dismissed such advice as “biased and tendentious”.
Also read: India Lodges Protest Against Singapore PM’s Speech on MPs With Criminal Charges
The latest evidence of New Delhi’s muscular hyper-sensitivity to foreign criticism concerns the Singapore Prime Minister’s speech in his national parliament. PM Lee Hsien Loong praised Jawaharlal Nehru and spoke of how when the vision of founding fathers fade, democratic deficits appear.
The context provided by the PM was that he had read in media reports that almost half the members of the Indian parliament face criminal charges. The actual figure might be 43% according to the electoral watchdog the Association for Democratic Reforms, but this reference was considered vexatious enough for the MEA to lodge an indignant protest with the Singapore high commissioner in India. Perhaps our MPs would have expected no less.
Also read: Know the Context: Here’s What Singapore’s PM Said About Nehru, Criminal Cases Against India’s MPs
Every government in the world, whether democratic or totalitarian, or anywhere in between, is deeply conscious of its external image and takes pains to cultivate a benign persona. This becomes more difficult to carry off as the globalised world demands greater transparency, and non-governmental organisations enjoy higher status and greater reputation.
The Indian government shows little patience for the views of domestic NGOs or concern for the viability of foreign NGOs in India, be it well reputed organisations like Oxfam and Amnesty International or lesser known bodies. It should not then be taken aback by the downgrade assessments of such as the United States Country Report on human rights practices, the World Press Freedom Index, Freedom House, V-Dem Institute, Open Doors World Watch List and a host of other such vigilant groups. Commercial companies also attracted India’s official ire, with a tweet by Hyundai on Kashmir leading to representations at an inter-governmental level.
The question of how to respond to external criticism is always a delicate one, especially when it concerns foreign governments that are considered generally sympathetic. In general, the more autocratic a regime, the greater the umbrage towards foreign governmental or media censure; whereas the more tolerant and democratic the regime, the more accommodating it is towards well-meaning criticism. It is not wise to swat away foreign critiques with the same contempt as accusations from domestic political rivals. Mitigating allusions to domestic safeguards like the rule of law can be justified, but do not carry great weight when the nation’s record in checking abuses of human rights through the courts is seen as distinctly patchy.
Also read: Singapore’s PM Has Praised Nehru. MEA, ED Must Probe Who’s Behind This Anti-Modi Conspiracy
The broader issue is whether an excessively robust denial and display of muscular petulance serves any purpose other than to give satisfaction to the domestic audience. Protesting too much will undermine credibility when a moderate assurance to examine the grievance and redress any deficiency through the processes that are available would better serve the nation and preserve the goodwill of the interrogator. Uninformed and motivated interference in internal affairs is a charge that has merit if the aggrieved party does not indulge in the same practice, whereas India is on record as vigorously taking up Sikh and Hindu causes abroad even when they pertain to domestic jurisdiction over citizens of foreign nations. What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander.
The chief minister in Delhi in May last year warned about a strain of COVID-19 observed in Singapore that was extremely perilous for children. During the excessive over-reaction habitual within India’s ruling elite, Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar pronounced that “irresponsible comments from those who should know better can damage long-standing partnerships”.
This advice has not been internalised by his own colleagues. A senior minster last year made many derogatory statements about Bangladesh when he described illegal Bangladeshi immigrants as vermin that he would push into the Bay of Bengal, and implied that poor people in Bangladesh were starving, which drew a stinging rebuke from the Bangladesh foreign minister.
As former police officer and ambassador Julio Ribeiro wrote in The Tribune on November 12, 2021,
“There is a need for wisdom and restraint in the pronouncements of our leaders. In their anxiety to claim credit and win elections, they often skip the need for common decency.”
This is where Jaishankar’s dictum is relevant. Insulting a friendly neighbour or well-intentioned interlocutor for the sake of public plaudits is too high a price for the country to pay.
Krishnan Srinivasan is a former foreign secretary.
