Western colonialism collapsed after the Second World War, leaving much of the world in shambles, resources looted, and people suppressed and impoverished. As Indians know all too well, borders of newly independent states were often carelessly drawn, leading to violence that plagues us generations later. Those most affected by these decisions never had a voice at the high table.
Decades later, new faces have gathered at that crucial table. India, left traumatised and unable to fully celebrate its freedom from colonial rule in 1947 because millions had perished or been displaced, has become a visible and vocal negotiator. In a recent instance, minister of state for environment Jairam Ramesh claimed that India played a constructive role in the climate change conference in December, as it could speak for the G-77, the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) group and the industrialised nations. Few agreed, sadly. Depending on their politics, critics either said India had been obstructive or that it compromised too much.
Unfortunately, much of India's foreign policy remains shrouded in a similar lack of clarity. India often ends up considered either an obstruction or a cop-out.
In Burma, for example, India has moved away from supporting the democracy movement and honouring detained Opposition leader Aung San Su Kyi to deciding that economic and security concerns take precedence. India's business-as-usual relations with the repressive military regime have been widely criticised. Indian diplomats respond that activists like to complain without understanding how nuanced diplomacy works.
However, what remains baffling is what exactly India can claim to have gained from supporting one of the most abusive regimes in the world. India has not won significant access to Burma's energy reserves and is regularly beaten by China at the finishing line. The Burmese military has not cooperated consistently with efforts to contain rebels in India's Northeast. Nor has India been able to undercut China's influence with the junta. Yet, in October, India voted against a United Nations General Assembly resolution to protect human rights in Burma. The resolution was passed with 92 votes in favour. Of the 26 that voted against, India was in the company of countries such as Syria, Zimbabwe, China, Libya and North Korea - not quite the best examples of the democracy Indians celebrate so much.
There are other, equally odd decisions. India rightly joined the world in condemning Sri Lanka's abusive Tamil Tigers. But many believe that when the Sri Lankan Army committed apparent war crimes and caused unimaginable human suffering among civilians caught up in the conflict, India did not speak out forcefully enough. In May 2009, at a special session of the UN Human Rights Council, India opposed a resolution criticising abuses by both sides; the weak resolution adopted instead largely commended the government. In June 2009, A. Gopinathan, India's permanent representative to the United Nations in Geneva, responded shockingly to concerns about Sri Lanka expressed by Navanethem Pillay, UN high commissioner for human rights, suggesting that her office may have been motivated by its own agenda or that "of some states, or unrepresentative or unaccountable organisations". Ms Pillay, a South African of Indian origin with a full understanding of apartheid and colonialism, would instead have expected the support of the world's largest democracy.
India is a part of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS), an attempt to end the trading of diamonds unearthed in conflict zones, known as "blood diamonds". Human rights groups have made repeated appeals to suspend Zimbabwe from the process for continuing human rights abuses and widespread smuggling in the Marange diamond fields after the government of Zimbabwe failed to comply with the recommendations of a KPCS review mission. India, chair of the group's participation committee, was in a strong position to influence the decision to suspend Zimbabwe but instead agreed to its empty promises that it would adopt compliance measures.
There are indications that significant numbers of raw Marange diamonds have already been channeled to India's large diamond cutting and polishing industry. Why is India willing to risk tainting the reputation of its domestic industry by championing the Mugabe regime?
India is keen not just to gain a greater say in global policy discussions, but also a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. For India to present a compelling case for its candidacy, it needs to focus on its obligation to protect individual rights.
Yet at the Human Rights Council and General Assembly and in backroom diplomacy, India is often on the side of abusive regimes, blocking, slowing down or voting against efforts to protect rights.
India now has a voice and it should use it to speak for many that still do not. It cannot allow its uneven domestic human rights record to come in the way of becoming a robust and moral champion to hold all states - including powerful ones that often escape scrutiny - to account. No nation can claim a perfect record, as the United States has displayed with great success since 9/11. Ironically, India is now often mimicking the behaviour it has so long decried in other countries.
Caprice or strategic and economic gains are the legacy of colonial history. India may have won its place at the negotiating table, but if it wants to be respected it should not display the same behaviour that caused it such suffering in the past.
In Burma, the generals have promised elections this year. India should insist that they release all political prisoners, allow the Opposition freedom to contest and campaign, and establish an independent and impartial election commission (one of India's own most prized institutions), or the poll will be considered a sham. India should call upon Sri Lanka's recently re-elected President Mahinda Rajapakse to initiate a reconciliation process that ensures civil and political rights for Tamils and other minorities, to end the repression of media and dissident civil society, and to support an impartial international investigation into all allegations of war crimes.
New Delhi has appointed a highly respected former diplomat as the new national security adviser. Shivshankar Menon should recommend that the government take these first steps as proof of India's vision and commitment to protect the rights of every citizen of the world.
Otherwise, despite the promise of trade and a robust economy, it will find itself alone, or in the company of those most disliked by the world community.
Meenakshi Ganguly works on South Asia for the Asia division of Human Rights Watch
