NEW DELHI: The compilations of events and cases in India, without an effort to understand the complexity of Indian society, marked by plurality, diversity and democratic ethos, actually makes the document a half-baked exercise.
Soon after the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) released its 2024 report that, among other things, has recommended to the State Department to designate seventeen countries, including India, as “countries of particular concern”, the Ministry of External Affairs took no time to respond and describe the report as “propaganda” against India in the midst of national elections in the country.
The MEA spokesperson, while considering the timing of the release of the report as interference in the internal affairs of India, exuded confidence that American accusations against religious freedom practices in India would fail to influence the Indian people.
The compilations of events and cases in India, without an effort to understand the complexity of Indian society, marked by plurality, diversity and democratic ethos, actually makes the document a half-baked exercise.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that an effort has been made to designate India as a “country of particular concern” by the USCIRF. Lack of contextualizing, examining and explaining the complaints, grievances and news reports and then recommending to the State Department for designating countries as “countries of particular concern” or putting out a “Special Watch List” of countries has often discouraged the State Department from implementing the recommendations of the USCIRF in toto.
As recently as January 2024, the USCIRF was frustrated that its recommendations to designate India and Nigeria as “countries of particular concern” did not find favour in the State Department. The chairman of the USCIRF, Abraham Cooper, and the vice chairmen put out a statement saying, “there is no justification as to why the State Department did not designate Nigeria or India as a country of particular concern, despite its own reporting and statements.”
It is to be seen how the State Department is going to act upon the latest USCIRF report released a few days ago. The job of the USCIRF interestingly is captured in the very expansion of its abbreviation—US Commission on International Religious Freedom. It collects information from diverse sources in other countries, compiles them and submits the report with recommendations. It neither collects similar data from within the United States nor gives recommendations.
The State Department, on the other hand, looks after American interests from around the world, projects US leadership in the globe on all significant issues and events, seeks to maintain friendly, cordial and cooperative ties with other countries. Its decision earlier not to implement the recommendations of the USCIRF was most likely based on its assessment of US interests in the world. USCIRF behaves like the religious freedom policeman of the globe, but other countries do not accept such a role, and have their own customs, traditions, practices, and belief systems that differ from that of USCIRF.
It is important for the US agencies to be aware that the world is watching what is happening within the United States in the areas of violations of religious freedom, human rights and racial practices. Even the United Nations Human Rights Committee monitors violation of religious freedom, racial profiling by law enforcement officials, hate crimes against minority communities, such as African Americans, Indigenous People, Hispanic and Asian people, and Muslims and Jews. The UN Committee is actually concerned that there is underreporting of hate crimes by law enforcement agencies to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Likewise, the Council of American-Islamic Relations receives hundreds of reports every year about incidents involving discrimination against Muslim population from across the United States. Last year, the National Association for Advancement of Coloured People protested against “aggressive attempts to erase Black history and to restrict diversity, equity and inclusion programs in Florida schools.”
It is also important to note that hate crimes in the US substantially include religion as well, although large categories remain race and ethnicity. This can be gleaned from the report of the US Justice Department, which said that in 2022, more than 17% cases of hate crimes were linked to religion. There are thousands of registered cases of hate crimes against Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists in the US.
Such discriminations involving religious communities, including Jews, Christians and Muslims and other racial groups are rampant in European countries that are strategic allies and economic partners of the US.
Before acting as religious policeman for other countries, mostly from the Global South, the US agencies, particularly USCIRF should be aware of what is going on within the US. While its mandate is to write report on international religious freedom, its recommendations should be based on holistic understanding of societies and not just on unverified reports and number of grievances.
The US, while providing leadership to the world in numerous areas of human endeavours, should adopt the norms of non-interference in internal affairs of other countries. In this age of free flow of information, the world is watching the US too. And, if other countries start issuing reports on the internal affairs of the US either alone or in concert with other countries, the US soft power is certainly going to be dented. Uncle Sam can say “we don’t care”, but the loss of soft power will surely diminish US influence around the globe.
Chintamani Mahapatra is Founder Chairperson of Kalinga Institute of Indo-Pacific Studies & formerly Professor at JNU.