The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom was created under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. Its mandate is to monitor religious freedom conditions worldwide and to recommend policy responses to the U.S. government. The petrodollar seems to have turned common sense in the USA on its head. Oh yes! Tuvalu and Nauru have issued sanctions against the Soviet Union. Andropov and Chernenko are terrified
The modern international system is crowded with institutions that claim the authority to judge, advise, recommend, and admonish. Among these is the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, a body created by the U.S. government to monitor religious freedom around the world and make policy recommendations to Washington. Every year the commission publishes reports identifying countries and organizations that it believes are violating religious freedoms and suggests actions ranging from diplomatic pressure to targeted sanctions. This seems to be perfectly in line with the Christian missionaries who used to saunter into India from 1500 AD to 1857 AD and tell Hindus that Christianity reserves the right to pass moral judgement on Hinduism.
In its latest recommendations, the commission urged the United States government to impose sanctions on individuals and organizations in India, including the Indian intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) and the cultural organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). The allegation was that these bodies were complicit in or tolerant of “severe violations of religious freedom.”
The recommendation immediately ignited debate in India and beyond. Critics argued that the commission had ventured far beyond the limits of diplomacy and had adopted the tone of an external moral authority passing judgment on the internal dynamics of another sovereign nation. Supporters, on the other hand, argued that religious freedom is a universal value and that global institutions must speak up wherever they perceive violations.
Yet the real question raised by such recommendations is not simply whether the allegations are valid or exaggerated. The deeper question is whether such unsolicited pronouncements from Washington still carry the authority they once did. In an increasingly multipolar world, the assumption that the United States can publicly prescribe moral and political standards to other powerful countries is facing growing skepticism.
The mandate and limitations of the USCIRF
The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom was created under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. Its mandate is to monitor religious freedom conditions worldwide and to recommend policy responses to the U.S. government. The commission does not make binding decisions. It has no enforcement power. Its role is advisory. Each year the commission produces detailed reports evaluating countries based on religious freedom indicators. Nations are categorized under labels such as “Countries of Particular Concern,” “Special Watch List,” or other classifications. The commission then recommends actions ranging from diplomatic engagement to sanctions. In principle, the idea behind the commission reflects a broader post–Cold War philosophy that the United States should promote democratic values globally. Religious freedom, in particular, has been seen by American policymakers as a foundational human right. However, the structure of the commission also reveals its limitations. Its recommendations are not automatically implemented by the U.S. government. The State Department and the White House may choose to adopt them, modify them, or ignore them altogether depending on broader diplomatic considerations. This means that when the commission suggests sanctions against organizations in a country like India, the proposal is essentially a policy suggestion rather than a decision. Whether such recommendations translate into actual action depends on political calculations far beyond the commission’s control.
Targeting Indian organizations
The recent recommendations concerning India are among the most controversial the commission has issued. The report suggested sanctions against entities such as the Research and Analysis Wing and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. The RSS is one of the largest voluntary organizations in the world, with millions of members and a deep historical presence in Indian civil society. The organization describes itself as a cultural and nationalist movement devoted to social service and nation building. Critics, however, often argue that it represents a major ideological influence behind Hindu nationalism in Indian politics. The Research and Analysis Wing, meanwhile, is India’s external intelligence agency, responsible for gathering foreign intelligence and conducting covert operations abroad. To recommend sanctions against such organizations is a dramatic step. It effectively implies that a U.S. government body believes these institutions are complicit in violations of religious freedom. India has consistently rejected such accusations. The Indian government has argued that reports from external commissions often rely on selective interpretations of events and do not adequately understand the complexities of Indian society.
Visa restrictions as a diplomatic tool
One of the few direct tools that the United States can use against individuals abroad is visa policy. Every country has the sovereign right to decide who may enter its territory. The U.S. frequently uses visa bans as a diplomatic signal or punitive measure. This mechanism was famously applied to Narendra Modi in 2005 when he was serving as Chief Minister of Gujarat.
At the time, the U.S. government revoked his existing visa and denied a new one under provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The decision cited allegations relating to the 2002 communal violence in Gujarat and invoked a provision dealing with severe violations of religious freedom. The denial was unprecedented. Modi became the only individual to be refused a visa under that specific provision of U.S. law. For nearly a decade, the decision stood as an example of the United States using visa policy to signal moral disapproval of a foreign political leader. Yet the episode would later demonstrate the limits of such symbolic gestures.
The reversal of the Modi visa ban
History took an unexpected turn in 2014 when Narendra Modi won a sweeping national election and became Prime Minister of India. Once he assumed office, diplomatic realities quickly overtook earlier political positions. As the elected leader of the world’s largest democracy, Modi could not simply be excluded from international engagement with the United States. The visa ban was quietly overturned. Soon after, Modi began making official visits to Washington and other American cities.
Over the following years the relationship between the two countries deepened significantly. Strategic cooperation increased across areas such as defense, technology, and Indo-Pacific security. The symbolic moment came in 2023 when U.S. President Joe Biden hosted Modi for a state dinner in Washington. The contrast was striking. A leader once denied entry to the United States was now being celebrated with the highest ceremonial honors available in American diplomacy. This reversal illustrated a simple truth: geopolitical interests often override earlier moral judgments.
Diplomatic pragmatism versus moral posturing
The Modi visa episode offers an instructive case study in how international diplomacy actually works. When Modi was a regional leader, the United States could afford to impose symbolic restrictions. When he became the leader of a major global power, the calculus changed. India’s geopolitical importance had grown enormously. It is one of the world’s largest economies, a nuclear-armed state, and a crucial partner in balancing power dynamics in Asia. In such circumstances, the idea that Washington could isolate India’s leadership became unrealistic. This is why many observers see recommendations like those from the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom as largely symbolic gestures rather than practical policy tools.
America’s long tradition of unwarranted global oversight
The United States has often seen itself as a guardian of global norms. Since the end of the Second World War, Washington has played a central role in building international institutions, promoting human rights frameworks, and shaping global governance. This tradition sometimes manifests in advisory bodies and commissions that evaluate the behavior of other countries. The assumption behind these efforts is that American institutions possess the legitimacy and authority to evaluate global standards. However, critics argue that such mechanisms can appear paternalistic when directed at other sovereign nations, especially powerful ones.
In a multipolar world where economic and political power is more widely distributed, the willingness of other countries to accept unilateral moral judgments from Washington has declined.
Lessons from the Yugoslav wars
The United States has previously used international legal frameworks to address alleged crimes committed by foreign leaders. During the conflicts that followed the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, Washington strongly supported the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
The tribunal prosecuted several leaders involved in the conflicts. Among them were figures such as Slobodan Praljak and Milan Martić. These cases were conducted through a formal international judicial process under the United Nations framework. The key difference was that the prosecutions occurred within a legally recognized international tribunal rather than through unilateral declarations by a single country. This distinction matters. International courts derive legitimacy from multilateral agreements, whereas unilateral sanctions recommendations from domestic commissions may not carry the same authority.
The contradictory Afghan experiences
The American record in Afghanistan illustrates another dimension of the issue. After the attacks of September 11 attacks, the United States launched military operations in Afghanistan to dismantle terrorist networks and overthrow the Taliban regime. In the complex political environment that followed, Washington frequently relied on local warlords and militia leaders as allies against insurgent forces.
Many of these figures had questionable human rights records. Critics argued that the United States was simultaneously condemning abuses while partnering with individuals accused of similar behavior. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch repeatedly warned about the risks of supporting regional powerbrokers with histories of abuse. Even U.S. oversight bodies like the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction raised concerns about the contradictions in American policy. These examples complicate the narrative of moral authority. They suggest that geopolitical interests often shape decisions more strongly than abstract principles.
The perception of American overreach
For many observers outside the United States, bodies like the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom sometimes appear to function as instruments of political messaging rather than neutral evaluators. This perception is particularly strong in countries that view themselves as emerging powers with their own civilizational identities and governance traditions. India, with its vast diversity of religions and cultures, often argues that external assessments fail to appreciate the complexity of its social landscape. Critics therefore see recommendations for sanctions against Indian organizations as an example of American overreach into the internal affairs of another democracy.
The changing global balance of power
The broader context for this debate is the changing distribution of global power. For much of the late twentieth century, the United States enjoyed unmatched economic, military, and political dominance. In that environment, American pronouncements often carried enormous weight. Today the situation is different. Rising powers such as India and China have altered the global balance. India in particular has developed a massive diaspora community spread across continents. Professionals, entrepreneurs, and technologists of Indian origin hold influential positions in industries ranging from technology to finance.
This global presence creates extensive economic and cultural networks that shape international relations. When a country possesses such influence, attempts to publicly reprimand it through advisory reports can appear increasingly ineffective.
Diaspora influence and global connectivity
The Indian diaspora has become one of the most influential global communities. From Silicon Valley technology firms to financial institutions in London and Singapore, people of Indian origin play significant roles in global economic networks. This diaspora influence strengthens India’s diplomatic position. Governments around the world increasingly view engagement with India as economically and strategically beneficial. In such an environment, recommendations for sanctions against major Indian institutions may struggle to gain traction among policymakers who prioritize broader economic and geopolitical partnerships.
Symbolism versus practical policy
The controversy surrounding the latest recommendations from the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom ultimately highlights the difference between symbolic gestures and practical policy. Symbolic gestures can attract media attention and signal ideological positions. But practical policy requires cooperation between governments that share strategic interests. India and the United States today collaborate on issues ranging from defense technology to maritime security in the Indo-Pacific. Given these priorities, it is unlikely that advisory recommendations targeting Indian institutions will significantly alter the trajectory of bilateral relations.
Echoes of historical commercial empires
Some critics draw historical parallels when discussing American attempts to influence other countries’ internal affairs. They argue that the United States sometimes behaves like a modern version of the East India Company—an external power attempting to shape political conditions in distant lands. The comparison is controversial and not entirely accurate. The East India Company was a commercial enterprise that eventually ruled large territories through colonial power. The United States, by contrast, operates within a system of sovereign states and international institutions.
Yet the analogy persists because it captures a broader perception: that powerful countries sometimes assume a right to intervene in the political narratives of others.
Sovereignty and the limits of external judgment
International relations have always involved a tension between universal values and national sovereignty.
On one hand, principles such as human rights and religious freedom are widely recognized as global norms. On the other hand, each nation maintains the right to govern its own internal affairs. When external institutions attempt to impose judgments on domestic policies, the result is often friction. India’s response to foreign criticism has consistently emphasized sovereignty and democratic legitimacy.
The Indian government argues that issues relating to social harmony, religious practice, and internal security must ultimately be addressed through domestic institutions and democratic processes.
The future of international moral authority
The debate surrounding the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom raises a larger question about the future of international moral authority. In a world where power is increasingly distributed among multiple centers, unilateral judgments from any single country are likely to face resistance. This does not mean that human rights concerns will disappear. International organizations, civil society groups, and multilateral institutions will continue to raise such issues.
But the mechanisms through which these concerns are addressed may need to evolve toward more collaborative and less unilateral approaches.
A multipolar world demands new diplomacy
The global system is moving toward a multipolar structure in which several major powers coexist and interact. In such an environment, diplomacy requires negotiation, mutual respect, and recognition of different political traditions.
Advisory commissions that issue sweeping judgments about other nations may find their influence diminishing if their recommendations are perceived as ideological rather than constructive. For the United States, adapting to this new reality will require balancing its long-standing commitment to promoting universal values with the practical realities of international cooperation.
Authority without influence: When unsolicited moral authority loses its audience
The controversy surrounding the latest recommendations targeting Indian organizations illustrates a broader transformation in global politics. Institutions such as the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom still possess the authority to produce reports and make policy suggestions. Yet authority on paper does not necessarily translate into influence in practice.
As the episode involving Narendra Modi demonstrates, diplomatic realities can rapidly override earlier judgments. The United States remains one of the most powerful nations in the world. But the ability to shape global narratives unilaterally is gradually diminishing. In the emerging international order, influence will depend less on issuing recommendations and more on building partnerships that acknowledge the sovereignty, identity, and interests of other nations. Whether institutions accustomed to speaking with unquestioned authority can adapt to this new environment remains one of the central questions of twenty-first century diplomacy.
