Does the world hate India?

As India votes, the world is watching -- and commenting in unprecedented ways.

In March, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Turk, ruffled feathers by mildly rapping India on the knuckles. “I appreciate the country’s secular and democratic traditions and its great diversity,” Turk said. “I am, however, concerned by increasing restrictions on the civic space – with human rights defenders, journalists and perceived critics targeted – as well as by hate speech and discrimination against minorities, especially Muslims.”

That was followed by ‘hectoring’ from the United States and Germany when Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal was arrested. In separate comments, German and US foreign office spokespersons “expressed hope” that the Indian judiciary will handle Kejriwal’s case fairly, transparently and free of political interference.

At the UN, India has been pulled up repeatedly. Over the last few years, special rapporteurs, officials and experts have come and gone in New York and Geneva, lambasting India for declining press freedoms, religious freedoms and institutional independence.

In the most recent episode, a UN-affiliated body in Geneva deferred the accreditation of India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), implying that the NHRC has fallen short of international standards for institutional independence, minority representation, and powers of investigation.

The NHRC had previously been given an ‘A’ grade in 2006, which meant that India then complied with international standards exceptionally well. That grade was reaffirmed in 2011 upon review. But in more recent years, India’s rating has become a matter of controversy. Last year, the UN organisation’s review committee said that the NHRC’s independence is in doubt because of the presence of too many individuals from the ruling party.

India’s foreign ministry has often responded to these global developments in angry denial, arguing that India doesn’t need the world’s lectures or validation. This month, External Affairs Minister Jaishankar accused the West of a hegemonic mindset. “Why are these people so negative on India?” he rued. In 2021, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Delhi Police had each separately suggested that there is a “global conspiracy” to defame India.

Did the world always take pleasure in bringing India down? The External Affairs Minister doesn’t seem to think so. Last year, amid the kerfuffle around a banned BBC documentary, Jaishankar said that the global media is increasingly invested in shaping “a very extremist image of India, of the government, of the BJP, of the Prime Minister.” Significantly, he added, “This has been going on for a decade.”

But if the world suddenly became interested in painting an “extremist image of India” only a decade ago, that puts the government in a difficult spot since the primary role of the foreign ministry is to build productive relations with the outside world. It’s strange therefore for a foreign minister to admit that the world — or even a part of it — has suddenly turned against the country under his government’s watch.

In the absence of military or economic influence on a global scale, India is still heavily dependent on Western institutions, whether New Delhi likes it or not. Reputational costs therefore mean something. If India’s institutions are deemed unreliable or politically compromised, it may deter Western investors and businesses from bringing their money into the country. If lawmakers in Washington are worried about human rights issues in India or alleged assassinations by Indian agents in their own country, they may block arms deals with New Delhi.

Jingoists may sometimes take pride in believing that the outside world is against them; admittedly, enemies give one a sense of outsized importance. But for a developing economy with Great Power aspirations, there are also heavy costs to be sustained for a sullied reputation.