India has formally called for greater even-handedness within the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), asserting that the credibility of the international body rests upon its ability to treat all member nations with consistency and fairness. Speaking during a debate on the Human Rights Council's report at the United Nations General Assembly on Friday, Bhavika Mangalanandan, First Secretary at India's Permanent Mission to the UN, cautioned that the council risks losing its legitimacy if it continues to pursue country-specific mandates without the active engagement of the nations involved.
Mangalanandan emphasised that such approaches, when conducted in isolation or without the cooperation of the concerned country, rarely result in tangible improvements in human rights conditions on the ground. Instead, she warned that these methods tend to foster divisions within the council rather than promote meaningful progress. Echoing sentiments previously expressed by External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, the Indian delegation maintained that human rights are most effectively advanced through genuine partnerships, capacity building, and open dialogue, rather than through double standards or selective scrutiny.
Highlighting the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) as the appropriate mechanism for assessing human rights records, India suggested that the current trend toward politicisation threatens the integrity of the council's mission. By advocating for a more unified voice, New Delhi seeks to address ongoing allegations that human rights frameworks are being weaponised for political gain. The delegation stressed that the council must prioritize transparency and member-driven processes to maintain its standing on the global stage.
Beyond structural concerns, India underscored the importance of balancing different categories of human rights. According to the Indian representative, economic, social, and cultural rights, along with the fundamental right to development, require the same level of attention and scrutiny as civil and political rights. Mangalanandan pointed out that global obstacles such as poverty, debt, and limited access to technology remain significant barriers to human rights, necessitating international cooperation rather than coercive measures.
The threat of terrorism was also identified as a grave concern during the discussions. India urged the council to maintain a sustained and uncompromising focus on terrorism, which it views as a direct assault on the fundamental right to life. The delegation reiterated its position that the council must adopt a policy of zero tolerance toward terror-related threats to ensure the safety and security of individuals worldwide.
Furthermore, India raised issues regarding the financial and operational management of the council. Mangalanandan called for a move toward predictable funding for the UN’s human rights pillar, noting that its priorities should be dictated by regular budgetary processes rather than being swayed by earmarked voluntary contributions. She also expressed concern over the duplication of efforts, pointing out that resolutions and initiatives on similar topics often arise simultaneously in both the Council and the UN General Assembly.
Finally, the Indian delegation warned against budgetary measures that might disproportionately affect mandates linked to development and economic rights. New Delhi suggested that mechanisms be put in place to avoid the overlap of reporting requirements between the Council and the General Assembly’s Third Committee. India, which returned to the Human Rights Council in 2026 for its seventh term covering the 2026-28 period, remains committed to promoting a more balanced and effective international human rights agenda.
Comments