Power, nativism, and the illusion of a U.S.-India partnership
text_fields
As India and the United States continue to deepen their strategic partnership, a paradox emerges - one that reflects the complexities of modern diplomacy. On one hand, Washington expresses concerns about religious freedom and minority rights in India, citing reports of mob violence, anti-conversion laws, and the persecution of Muslims and Christians. On the other, it accelerates military cooperation, pledging multi-billion-dollar defence sales, counter-terrorism coordination, and increased economic engagement. This dual approach raises a critical question: Do human rights concerns genuinely shape U.S. foreign policy, or are they merely rhetorical flourishes in a larger geopolitical chess game?
For years, the U.S. State Department and international human rights organizations have documented the rise of majoritarian politics in India, underscoring incidents of targeted violence, legal frameworks that disproportionately impact minorities, and a crackdown on dissent. The latest Report on International Religious Freedom details a troubling pattern -mob violence, restrictions on religious conversions, and government inaction in cases of communal attacks. Calls for designating India as a Country of Particular Concern have gained traction, echoing concerns voiced by organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
According to the monitoring by the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS), India witnessed 59 communal riots in 2024, a significant rise compared to 32 riots in 2023, reflecting an 84% increase. These 59 incidents of communal riots resulted in 13 deaths - 10 Muslims and 3 Hindus. The western region of India, particularly Maharashtra, emerged as the epicenter of these conflicts, with the state of Maharashtra accounting for 12 of the 59 riots. The United Christian Forum reported 731 attacks on Christians in 2023, compared to 599 the previous year.
Yet, these concerns have not prevented Washington from bolstering its relationship with New Delhi. The recent approval of Tahawwur Rana’s extradition, the planned sale of F-35 fighter jets, and increasing cooperation under the Quad alliance highlight India’s importance to American strategic calculations. With China’s growing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific and the U.S. seeking to counter Beijing’s influence, India’s role as a regional power is indispensable.
This selective approach to human rights underscores a well-worn pattern in global politics: moral imperatives yield to strategic interests. The U.S. has often overlooked domestic challenges in allied nations when security and economic partnerships are at stake. The relationship with Saudi Arabia and Israel - where human rights abuses have long been documented - offers a telling parallel. As former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once said, "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests."
For India, this dynamic presents both opportunities and challenges. The government welcomes deeper ties with Washington, leveraging defence agreements, economic collaboration, and technological exchanges to assert itself as a global power. However, the underlying criticisms about minority rights and democratic backsliding pose reputational risks that could complicate India’s aspirations for a leadership role in global governance institutions such as the UN Security Council.
During Modi’s visit to the U.S. in 2023, a Wall Street Journal reporter asked him directly about discrimination against Muslims in India. Rather than addressing the question directly, Modi responded, "We are a democracy... and democracy runs in our veins... There is no discrimination in India." This response, widely critiqued by journalists and human rights activists, encapsulated Modi’s broader strategy of evading accountability on minority rights. As Arundhati Roy has pointed out during his last visit, Modi's administration has systematically eroded the rights of minorities while maintaining a façade of democratic governance abroad.
Roy further argued that the illusion of a U.S.-India partnership is built on convenience rather than shared democratic values. She noted that India, under Modi, is transitioning into an electoral autocracy, where dissent is crushed, religious minorities face unprecedented persecution, and media is heavily censored. India now ranks 161st out of 180 countries on the World Press Freedom Index, and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has faced widespread accusations of targeting political opponents, journalists, and human rights activists.
Notably, Modi rarely holds press conferences in India but participated in one in Washington, D.C. - both in 2023 and now in 2025 - ostensibly because he had no choice. The leader of the world’s largest democracy should not need the U.S. capital as a setting to engage with the press on fundamental rights.
Roy also highlighted the broader implications of the U.S.'s embrace of Modi. Washington's decision to prioritize strategic alliances over human rights is reminiscent of its past support for authoritarian regimes. "Power knows the truth far better than we do," she wrote, arguing that the U.S. is well aware of the democratic backsliding in India but continues to bolster Modi for its geopolitical gains, particularly in countering China.
The more it changes, the more it stays the same.
At home, Indian policymakers must recognize that while strategic partnerships are essential, sustainable global leadership also requires a commitment to pluralism, justice, and democratic values. If India aspires to be a global powerhouse, it must not only project strength abroad but also foster inclusivity and fairness within its borders. Democracy is not just about votes and parties, but about participation, freedom, and justice.
As the U.S. and India continue their diplomatic dance, it is clear that geopolitics will often outweigh principles. However, the true measure of a nation’s strength is not merely in its military alliances or trade balances but in the fairness of its institutions and the security of its citizens - regardless of their religion or ethnicity. The question remains: Can nations truly claim greatness if they sacrifice their democratic and foundational values in pursuit of power and nativism?