By John Q. Hosedrinker 
India voted against a UN Human Rights Council resolution calling for an investigation into human rights violations in Iran during recent protests, along with six other countries. The resolution, which was adopted, condemned the violent crackdown on protests and urged Iran to respect human rights. India’s decision, which aligns with its long-held belief that country-specific resolutions are unhelpful, drew public gratitude from Iran’s ambassador to India. This stance also reflects India’s commitment to justice, multilateralism, and national sovereignty.
Read the original article here
India stands with Iran: Delhi votes against UN resolution on human rights violations, and this act certainly sparks a lot of discussion. It’s interesting to unpack why a nation like India, a vibrant democracy with its own internal complexities, would choose to vote against a UN resolution concerning human rights violations in Iran.
India’s strategic and economic interests in Iran are a significant factor. There are considerable investments, particularly in the Chabahar Port, the surrounding Special Economic Zone, and various Iranian oil companies. These investments are interwoven with India’s broader strategic goals, including counterbalancing Pakistan’s influence. It’s a classic case of geopolitical alignment, where countries find common ground in shared interests, which makes this vote unsurprising to some observers. India and Iran essentially find themselves in the age-old game of “scratching each other’s backs.”
The implications of this decision raise a number of questions. Why would India, a nation that often faces criticism over its own human rights record, choose to align itself with a regime accused of severe abuses? The answer lies in the harsh realities of international relations. Morality, sadly, often takes a backseat to strategic and economic imperatives. This is not to excuse the disregard for human rights, but rather to acknowledge the complex calculations that govern foreign policy.
Critics are quick to point out that this is not a new phenomenon. They highlight India’s historical non-alignment strategy, which has often prioritized national interests over idealistic principles. There’s a strong sentiment that India is prioritizing monetary gains over human life, which is seen as a deeply shameful. It’s a reminder that global politics is often a game of pragmatism. The sentiment is expressed that India often seems to prioritize its own interests above all else, and this vote is seen as another example.
Another significant driver of the decision involves India’s long-standing concerns about Pakistan. India has faced terrorist threats emanating from Pakistan for many years. It’s a situation that has shaped India’s foreign policy to be less influenced by the West’s ideals.
From India’s perspective, the nation’s historical experience with the international community has taught it valuable lessons. The government’s decisions are viewed in light of the double standards and lack of support it has often faced from Western nations on the issue of terrorism. This perspective helps explain the reluctance to take a strong stance against any regime.
Furthermore, this vote can be viewed through the lens of non-interventionism. India, having learned tough lessons, avoids getting embroiled in conflicts that don’t directly impact its national interests. This policy is partly rooted in historical experience and a desire to avoid being entangled in the power plays of larger nations.
Some commentators have also highlighted the domestic implications of the decision. India has a significant Shia Muslim population, and the government is wary of actions that might alienate this community. The internal political dynamics can have a big impact on foreign policy decisions.
Ultimately, India’s vote against the UN resolution is a complex one. It’s a decision driven by a mix of strategic, economic, and domestic considerations. While it raises serious questions about the prioritization of human rights, it also highlights the realpolitik that governs international relations.