New Delhi: Indias External Affairs Ministry has rebuked the recent Human Rights Report issued by the US State Department, denouncing it as deeply biased. The report, addressing incidents such as the violence in Manipur and the killing of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar, has drawn sharp criticism from Indian officials.Dismissal of the Human Rights reportMEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal dismissed the report, citing its bias and lack of comprehension regarding Indias complexities. He emphasized that the Indian government assigns no value to such reports and urged others to adopt a similar stance.#WATCH | On the US State Department report on Human Rights, MEA Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal says, This report is deeply biased and reflects a poor understanding of India. We attach no value to it and urge you to do the same. pic.twitter.com/4XIHgnoswP— ANI (@ANI) April 25, 2024Insights from the reportThe US report highlighted significant abuses in Manipur, particularly amidst ethnic conflict, resulting in casualties and displacement. It also shed light on instances of transnational repression, including the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada.Manipur unrestEthnic tensions between the Meitei and Kuki communities in Manipur led to unrest, claiming numerous lives and displacing thousands. The conflict escalated following a Tribal Solidarity March protesting the inclusion of Meiteis in the ST category.Raids in BBCs Mumbai officeAdditionally, the report discussed the Income Tax departments searches at the Delhi and Mumbai offices of the BBC, alleging irregularities. These searches followed the release of a documentary by the broadcaster on the 2002 Gujarat riots.Khalistani extremismThe report also highlighted the killing of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada, signaling concerns over extrajudicial actions. US officials have urged India to uphold its human rights commitments in light of these developments.Indias firm rebuttal to the US Human Rights Report underscores its commitment to addressing domestic issues internally and rejecting external assessments perceived as biased. As diplomatic exchanges continue, the divergent perspectives on human rights underscore the complexities of global relations.
