ON
← Back to feed
'Human rights not tool for political pressure': India on UN criticism over protests
India🏛️ PoliticsLean Conservative23 hr. ago

'Human rights not tool for political pressure': India on UN criticism over protests

India has rejected criticisms from the United Nations regarding its handling of recent protests, asserting that human rights should not be used as a tool for political pressure. During a speech at the UNGA Third Committee, Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs Barkha Tamrakar emphasized that India engages with international human rights mechanisms through dialogue, consultation, and cooperation, rejecting selective targeting or biased interpretations of its practices. This comes amid concerns raised by UN human rights experts over the heavy-handed police response to youth-led protests in New Delhi. The experts highlighted reports of arbitrary detentions, restrictions on public gatherings, and allegations of ill-treatment, including sexual violence, against protesters. These protests were primarily driven by dissatisfaction with government policies affecting the education system and voter-roll deletions impacting millions, particularly from marginalized communities.

India asserted on Wednesday that human rights frameworks must not serve as instruments for political pressure or the selective targeting of nations, rejecting efforts to construct a negative narrative regarding the world’s largest democracy based on unverified data. Speaking at the United Nations General Assembly Third Committee in New York, Barkha Tamrakar, Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, stated that India engages with international human rights mechanisms but insists such interactions rely on dialogue, consultation, and cooperation guided by non-selectivity and transparency. She urged delegations to cite reports faithfully rather than inflating humanitarian communications into definitive verdicts. Tamrakar specifically opposed converting incomplete statistics or reports lacking specific country observations into adverse characterizations of India. These remarks followed statements made by more than twenty UN human rights experts in Geneva on Tuesday, October 20. The experts expressed alarm over what they described as a repeatedly heavy-handed police response to peaceful, youth-led demonstrations in New Delhi. In a statement distributed by UN Special Procedures, the group alleged that law enforcement agencies used force against unarmed students, detained protesters arbitrarily, and imposed broad restrictions on public gatherings. Despite the non-violent nature of these assemblies, the experts noted that security forces deployed physical force. They called on Indian authorities to respect the right to peaceful assembly and ensure accountability for alleged abuses. The UN experts highlighted that hundreds of thousands of students and supporters had gathered peacefully across the country to protest government decisions regarding the education system and recent deletions from voter rolls. Reports indicated that these deletions affected approximately 130 million individuals, many of whom belonged to Muslim, Scheduled Caste, and Scheduled Tribe communities. The specialists reported that more than 7,000 young people, journalists, human rights defenders, lawyers, and political party members were recently detained in New Delhi. These individuals were transported to detention centers located far from the city center. The experts claimed that the detainees' mobile phones were seized and protest-related materials were deleted. Most of those held were released after 24 hours, including prominent protest leaders. Concerns extended to reports of injuries and ill-treatment among protesters. The experts expressed particular worry over allegations of sexual violence and other forms of gender-based abuse occurring during demonstrations and associated detentions. They also criticized the reported application of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to impose wide-ranging restrictions on public gatherings, suspend public transportation, and enforce internet shutdowns. The UN group maintained that any restrictions on peaceful assembly must be lawful, pursue a legitimate objective, and remain necessary and proportionate. They urged Indian authorities to cease excessive use of force, lift blanket restrictions on assemblies, and avoid the misuse of digital surveillance tools, including biometric monitoring and internet disruptions. An independent, impartial, and thorough investigation into the conduct of law enforcement personnel was demanded, along with measures to ensure accountability, justice, and reparations for victims. In response to the broader context, Tamrakar emphasized that India is anchored in the rule of law. She noted that India signed the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance on February 6, 2007, although the treaty has not yet been ratified. The convention prohibits state-sponsored abductions and classifies widespread enforced disappearances as crimes against humanity. Tamrakar pointed to Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, arguing that an independent judiciary provides safeguards against alleged citizen disappearances. She added that the Right to Information Act strengthens transparency and accountability in governance, supported by independent media and a dynamic civil society. Furthermore, she stated that national and state human rights commissions offer effective avenues for complaints and redressal. The diplomatic exchange occurred against a backdrop of ongoing tensions. Last week, India rejected a report by a UN human rights expert as hearsay. That report had noted a satirical political movement created by the country’s youth and alleged that participants faced retaliation. New Delhi had previously urged the expert to verify claims before vilifying issues based on unverified allegations. The UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner had separately expressed concern over reports of mass detentions involving demonstrators, protest leaders, and members of civil society organizations. The protests themselves were triggered by demands for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Demonstrators objected to his handling of the special intensive revision of voter rolls. The UN experts characterized the crackdown as part of a broader, troubling pattern. They stated that they had repeatedly alerted Indian authorities regarding undue restrictions on peaceful assembly, excessive force, arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, and the targeting of student activists. Tamrakar concluded her address by stating that New Delhi remained prepared to clarify specific, properly documented cases through established channels. The session focused on the agenda item concerning the Working Group on Enforced Disappearances.

How this report was made. Objective News wrote this report from 2 source articles, using AI-assisted synthesis under our methodology. It is our own text, not a copy of any single outlet. Read our methodology.

Responsible editor: Matej BašaSpotted an error? Report it

Go to the primary sources (3)

The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.

2 reports

Times of India logoTimes of IndiaIndependentConservativeFactual 95Objective 85yesterday
'Human rights not tool for political pressure': India on UN criticism over protests

India has rejected criticisms from the United Nations regarding its handling of recent protests, asserting that human rights should not be used as a tool for political pressure. During a speech at the UNGA Third Committee, Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs Barkha Tamrakar emphasized that India engages with international human rights mechanisms through dialogue, consultation, and cooperation, rejecting selective targeting or biased interpretations of its practices. This comes amid concerns raised by UN human rights experts over the heavy-handed police response to youth-led protests in New Delhi. The experts highlighted reports of arbitrary detentions, restrictions on public gatherings, and allegations of ill-treatment, including sexual violence, against protesters. These protests were primarily driven by dissatisfaction with government policies affecting the education system and voter-roll deletions impacting millions, particularly from marginalized communities.

Bias read (Conservative): The article frames India’s stance as a rejection of perceived Western double standards and emphasizes sovereignty and non-interference in internal matters. It presents the Indian government’s position as firm and defensive, while the UN critics are portrayed as making unverified claims and using the

Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports India's stance on human rights being used as a political tool, citing Deputy Secretary Barkha Tamrakar's statements at the UNGA Third Committee. It includes relevant context about UN human rights experts' concerns regarding protests in New Delhi. The details align clos

Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a relatively neutral tone, presenting India's position without overt bias. However, phrases like 'opposing attempts to turn allegations into a negative characterisation' may imply a defensive posture. Overall, it avoids strong emotional language and remains mostly objective.

Scroll.in logoScroll.inIndependentCenterFactual 55Objective 4023 hr. ago
India rejects its ‘negative characterisation’ at UN based on allegations of human rights abuse

India rejected criticism from UN human rights experts who accused the country of human rights violations, calling the allegations a 'negative characterisation' of its democratic system. The criticism followed reports of a heavy-handed police response to protests against the Chief Election Commissioner's handling of voter roll revisions, resulting in over 7,000 people being detained, including journalists, lawyers, and activists. UN experts highlighted concerns about arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, and suppression of peaceful assembly. In response, India emphasized its commitment to the rule of law, citing its signing of the Convention on Enforced Disappearances, though noting it has not yet ratified the treaty. Officials also pointed to domestic legal frameworks like the Right to Information Act and independent judicial systems as safeguards against such issues.

Bias read (Center): The article presents both the Indian government's rebuttal of UN criticisms and the UN experts' concerns without overtly favoring either side. It includes direct quotes from both parties and provides factual context regarding India's stance on international treaties and domestic legal protections. S

Why factuality (55): The article accurately reports the specific diplomatic exchange between India and the UN regarding recent events (voter roll revisions, detentions). It correctly identifies the date India signed the Convention on Enforced Disappearances (Feb 6, 2007) and notes it has not been ratified. However, it c

Why objectivity (40): The tone is relatively neutral in reporting the statements, but the framing is somewhat defensive of the Indian government. It highlights India's rejection of 'negative characterization' and emphasizes legal safeguards (Article 21, independent judiciary) without providing counter-perspective or ackn

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories