Modi govt's civilisation rhetoric and democratic silence are not in sync

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi landed in the Netherlands, the expectation was that the visit would underline India’s growing global stature and deepen ties with one of Europe’s most prosperous democracies. Yet, even before the optics of diplomacy could settle into familiar comfort, Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten struck a discordant note.

In response to a journalist’s question, he referred to concerns about India’s secular character and the freedom of the press. It was not part of a prepared speech. Nor was it delivered with a theatrical flourish meant to embarrass the visitor. In fact, the issue did not figure in the bilateral discussions. That itself is proof that Jetten merely articulated concerns that are increasingly being voiced across Europe and other democratic societies.

What followed from the Indian side, however, was far less convincing. When journalists raised the same issue at the press conference addressed by the Secretary (West) in the Ministry of External Affairs, Sibi George, one expected a direct response. Instead, what came was a long detour through civilisational history.

The official launched into an elaborate discourse on the meaning of nationhood, describing India as a civilisation that has survived for 5,000 years. He reminded the world that India gave the concept of zero to mathematics, without which modern computing would not have been possible.

The issue before the world is not whether India is an ancient civilisation. Nobody disputes that. Nor does anyone deny India’s enormous contribution to philosophy, mathematics, spirituality, literature, or science. The real question is whether modern India, governed by a Constitution that promises equality to all citizens, is living up to those promises today.

On that crucial point, the official response descended into obfuscation. The spokesperson quoted the Preamble to the Constitution and emphasised that citizens whose rights are violated can seek legal remedy. That is true. But merely pointing to constitutional safeguards is not an answer to concerns about whether those safeguards are being weakened in practice.

The concerns raised by the Dutch Prime Minister are not inventions of hostile propagandists. Violence against Muslims, Christians, Dalits, and women has undeniably increased in recent years. There is ample documentation by independent agencies, civil society groups, and even official records to show that minorities increasingly live under anxiety and suspicion.

The tragedy of Manipur remains a grim reminder. Entire settlements of Christian Kukis were uprooted from the Valley. Hundreds died, churches were destroyed, and tens of thousands continue to live in relief camps. Even after months of violence, genuine reconciliation remains elusive.

Similarly, anti-conversion laws in several States have increasingly become instruments of intimidation against Christians and their institutions. Attempts to redefine school management committees are viewed by many Christian organisations as efforts to erode their constitutional right to administer educational institutions according to their own traditions and values.

The Muslim community, too, continues to face discrimination in subtle and overt ways. Mob lynchings may have become less frequent in headlines, but social hostility has only increased. There are also troubling allegations that a disproportionately high number of those disenfranchised recently belong to the Muslim community.

Equally unconvincing was the attempt to invoke ancient examples of tolerance. Mentioning that persecuted Jews found refuge here does little to answer contemporary anxieties. India’s past hospitality is a matter of pride. But historical generosity cannot become a shield against present-day criticism.

The argument regarding demographic change was even more problematic. The official apparently cited the growth of the Muslim population from around 11% after Independence to about 20% now. But such selective statistics can easily mislead. The Hindu population itself rose sharply in percentage terms immediately after Partition because millions of Muslims migrated to Pakistan while Hindu and Sikh refugees entered India.

The larger issue is credibility. India’s ranking in the global Press Freedom Index has fallen steadily. In 2026, India stood at 157 out of 180 countries, slipping further from 151 the previous year. It ranked below Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bhutan, though marginally above Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. The Netherlands, significantly, stands near the very top, second only to Norway.

One may criticise the methodology of such rankings. Indeed, no index is perfect. But dismissing every criticism as biased propaganda does not answer the fundamental question: why does India continue to slide downward year after year? That is why the Dutch Prime Minister’s comments carry moral weight. A country that consistently ranks among the world’s freest societies possesses the legitimacy to raise such concerns.

The tragedy is that India need not fear such scrutiny. India’s strength has always lain in its pluralism, argumentative traditions, and democratic practices. The world does not expect India to be flawless. No democracy is. What the world expects is honesty, transparency, and a clear assurance that every citizen will enjoy equal protection and dignity.

Grand speeches about civilisation and ancient glory cannot substitute for that assurance. Ultimately, the taste of the pudding is in the eating. India will be judged not by rhetorical declarations abroad, but by the lived experiences of its people at home.

A J Philip is a Delhi-based senior journalist.

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)