The United Nations, as an international body, was established with the noble goal of upholding global peace, security, and human rights. However, over the years, India has repeatedly found itself at the receiving end of biased narratives pushed by various UN agencies, particularly concerning issues like Kashmir and internal security matters. This bias is starkly evident in the recent remarks made by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) on Kashmir and Manipur, which India has rightly dismissed as "unfounded" and "baseless." The UN's selective criticism and misrepresentation of complex issues while conveniently overlooking human rights violations in other regions, especially in Pakistan and some Western nations, expose a troubling pattern of double standards.
One of the most glaring examples of the UN's bias against India is its persistent interference in Jammu and Kashmir. The region has been an integral part of India since its accession in 1947, yet the UN has consistently taken a one-sided stance, often parroting Pakistan’s narrative. Despite overwhelming evidence of Pakistan's state-sponsored terrorism in Kashmir, the UN has largely ignored India's legitimate concerns about cross-border terrorism, radicalization, and the suffering inflicted on civilians by terror outfits operating with Pakistan’s support. The biased nature of the UN's approach was evident in its reports on Kashmir, which have often been based on dubious sources, unverified claims, and deliberate misrepresentation of facts, rather than a genuine assessment of the ground reality. This tendency to ignore the complexities of counter-terrorism operations while amplifying selective grievances creates an unfair and misleading portrayal of India’s efforts to restore peace and stability in the region.
Similarly, the recent remarks on the situation in Manipur reflect a superficial understanding of India's internal security challenges. Manipur has witnessed ethnic clashes that are deeply rooted in historical grievances, insurgency-related complexities, and socio-political dynamics. The Indian government has been actively engaged in resolving these issues through dialogue, governance measures, and security interventions. However, instead of appreciating India’s efforts to address internal conflicts through democratic and constitutional means, the UN has chosen to present a distorted picture, ignoring the proactive steps taken to restore peace and stability. This selective outrage raises serious questions about the credibility and intentions behind such reports.
In stark contrast, the UN has displayed remarkable leniency when it comes to human rights violations in Pakistan. The human rights situation in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan remains dire, with reports of enforced disappearances, torture, curbs on freedom of speech, and targeted attacks on political activists. Yet, the UN has failed to take any substantial action or issue strong condemnations against Pakistan. The plight of minorities in Pakistan, including Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, and even Shia Muslims and Ahmadis, who face systemic persecution, forced conversions, and mob violence, is well documented. However, these grave human rights violations rarely elicit the same level of scrutiny or outrage from the UN that India faces over its internal security measures.
Moreover, the UN’s silence on the violations committed by some Western nations further underscores its selective approach. From the unjust wars waged in the Middle East that led to large-scale civilian casualties to the racial injustices and police brutality faced by minorities in the United States and Europe, the UN’s response has often been either muted or confined to generic statements. The refugee crisis caused by Western military interventions, as seen in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, has led to untold suffering, yet these nations escape the kind of moral scrutiny that India is routinely subjected to. This glaring hypocrisy raises pertinent questions about whether the UN's human rights mechanisms are truly impartial or merely instruments of geopolitical influence.
India has, time and again, demonstrated its commitment to human rights, democratic values, and inclusive governance. Unlike many nations that suppress dissent through authoritarian measures, India remains a thriving democracy where issues are debated, judicial mechanisms provide redressal, and civil society plays an active role in governance. The UN’s continuous "cherry-picking" of issues while ignoring the larger context does not serve the cause of human rights; rather, it undermines the credibility of international institutions meant to uphold these principles.
India’s firm rejection of the UN’s baseless remarks is not just about defending its sovereignty but also about exposing the inherent bias in the global human rights discourse. For the UN to regain its credibility, it must abandon its selective outrage, base its assessments on facts rather than propaganda, and apply the same standards to all nations—whether it is India, Pakistan, or Western powers. Until then, India's position will remain resolute in challenging unfair narratives and ensuring that the truth prevails in the global arena.
Uday India Bureau
Leave Your Comment