WhatsApp_Image_2021-09-01_at_12.04_.25_

The United States has always emphasised on, and taken pride in its core values of freedom, equality, and justice. In the post-World War II scenario, the US also assumed the global leadership role for the implementation of these values around the world. All the Western countries rallied around the US for supporting the cause. Over the past seven decades or so, the US and the west saw the world divided between democratic and authoritarian systems. The alliance, in pursuit of implementation of democratic values, did not even hesitate to wage wars against assumed authoritarian regimes.

The entire Cold War era was aimed at containing communism, an authoritarian system. More recent examples of the use of military force against authoritarian regimes include countries like Iraq, Libya and Syria. These countries were, however, far better under their so-called authoritarian regimes as after US military action, their people have been living a distressed life in conditions of civil war or under a perpetual threat of militancy and terrorism by various extremist groups. The US initially invaded Afghanistan to destroy a terrorist network, however, with the passage of time, it shifted its focus towards the implementation of democratic rule, women’s rights etc.

The US has been critical of the Russian and Chinese system of governance for decades. However, the criticism has now changed to confrontation in the shape of trade war, especially with China. As a consequence, many Russian and Chinese entities are under US sanctions for various reasons. At the same time, the US has gradually been enhancing its ties with India, which it now considers a critical partner in its China containment policy.

As a guest at the G-7 summit in the United Kingdom in June, Prime Minister Narendra Modi while addressing a special session on “open societies,” highlighted India’s “civilisational commitment to democracy, freedom of thought, and liberty.” Modi’s remarks were highly appreciated, as was the country’s support of a G-7 joint statement reaffirming a “shared belief in open societies, democratic values and multilateralism.” However, the reality about Modi and his country are far from the claimed system.

Modi is known as the “Butcher of Gujrat”, who as Chief Minister, oversaw the killing of over 2000 Muslims. Only months before the G-7 summit, the democracy watchdog Freedom House had downgraded India from “free” to “partly free,” citing a “multiyear pattern” of “rising violence and discriminatory policies affecting the Muslim population and a crackdown on expressions of dissent” under the Modi government.

Indian atrocities in the Illegally Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) are an acknowledged fact and substantiated by many international humanitarian organisations. Revocation of Article 370 and 35A is a violation of UN resolutions, bilateral agreements with Pakistan and commitments given to the people of IIOJK by the Indian leadership. Confirmation of atrocities by international organizations lay bare the Indian lies about democratic values, human rights, multilateralism etc. The country’s Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is aimed at marginalising Muslim minorities. Attacks on Muslims by Hindu vigilantes on false claims of cow slaughter and frequent incidents of lynching are also a proof against the claimed all-inclusive and democratic processes in India. Under PM Modi, religious freedom for minorities has come to naught. There is also no freedom of expression in the media. Any criticism of the government is discouraged through threats, new laws and use of brutal force.

Today, India can be defined as a hardliner Hindutva-driven state with zero tolerance for religious minorities and no freedom of expression. Other democratic values are also under severe strain.

The current state of India’s democracy is totally out of sync with the value system the US endeavours to ensure around the globe. This should be a matter of serious concern for the US leadership as the two countries are strategic partners. If the US feels threatened by authoritarian states, India has also become an authoritarian state with no religious tolerance, violation of human rights and lack of freedom of expression. If the US has been waging wars to bring democracy and preserve human rights in many countries, how could it partner with India which also falls in the same category?

It is now for the US to decide whether to pursue its value system or abandon it to keep the Modi regime happy and use India against China, supposedly an authoritarian state. If the US feels challenged by authoritarian states such as Russia and China, its partners must be exemplary democracies. Reality, however, suggests the opposite—the US is partnering with an authoritarian system based on extremist religious ideology.

The writer has served as Pakistan’s Air Adviser at New Delhi from 2002-2006, and is presently Director Strategic Defence & Security at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS). This article was first published in The Nation. He can be reached at [email protected].

Image Source: Mariam Siddiqui


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management

Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.

Read More »

Marka-e-Haq to the Peace Talks: Pakistan’s Middle Power Status

On 7th May 2025, Pakistan’s military forces took the international security community by surprise when it demonstrated operational superiority against its larger belligerent adversary India with its rapid and coordinated response. The Four-Day conflict proved to be a watershed moment for Pakistan, marking its rapid emergence as an important player in the region. In recent years, amidst the ongoing global competition between the United States and China, Islamabad has adopted a position of ’Strategic Balancing,’ where it maintains ties of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington. Deft diplomacy, emphasis on geo-economics, and credible conventional and strategic deterrence have remained the foundational pillars for Pakistan’s ambition as a rising middle power

Read More »

Debunking the S-400 Shield: Lessons from the India-Pakistan Conflict

Air defense has always been a central aspect of warfare. In South Asia, the phenomenon carries immense significance due to compressed reaction times. In this context, one of the most-hyped systems is the Russian-made S-400, touted by New Delhi as a one-stop solution to counter aerial threats from both Pakistan and China.
The 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan marked an important chapter in testing the S-400 technology. The conflict began on May 7, when India attacked what it alleged were terrorist targets in both Pakistani-held Kashmir and Pakistan proper, using drone and missile strikes. The conflict lasted for four days, culminating in a U.S-facilitated ceasefire. However, the brief conflict debunked a lot of the myths regarding the S-400 technology.
First, India claimed that the mobile S-400 would be able to control Pakistan’s airspace. In contrast, Pakistani aircraft continued to operate freely, according to official briefings by the Pakistani military. Although the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) aircraft were in their own airspace, they were still within the air defense range.

Read More »