MyVoice: Views of our readers 27th January 2026

Voting against UNHRC sending mixed signals

Apropos “India’s vote against UNHRC is incomprehensible” (THI, Jan 26). The editorial raises a valid concern about India’s vote against the UN Human Rights Council resolution on Iran’s crackdown on protests. While the government’s stance likely stems from principles of non-interference, sovereignty and avoiding selective mechanisms—in addition to bilateral ties with Tehran—such positions can sometimes appear at odds with India’s own advocacy for human rights and democratic values elsewhere.

It risks sending mixed signals on our commitment to universal principles. A balanced way forward would be for the Ministry of External Affairs to explain these decisions more transparently, through statements that highlight both our principled objections and continued support for dialogue on rights issues. This could help maintain credibility without compromising diplomatic space.

A Myilsami, Coimbatore-641402

India needs Iran’s support at Chabahar port

It is with reference to the editorial page article “India vote against UNHRC is incomprehensible”. By voting against UNHRC’s recent resolution condemning Iran for its violent crackdown on public protest and extended investigative mandate to prove the alleged violations, India is maintaining its independent standing in international politics, which is a welcome decision.

India has in the past also voted against similar ‘country specific’ resolutions, following the principles of non-interference in internal affairs of other nations. Moreover, India needs Iran’s goodwill to maintain its interests in Chabahar port, which is critical for India’s connectivity to Afghanistan and central Asia. Meanwhile, Iran should fulfil human rights obligations and immediately restore internet access, though the resolution was opposed by seven nations, including India.

P Victor Selvaraj, Tirunelveli-627002

Pragmatism marks vote against UNHRC

India’s vote against the UNHRC resolution on Iran is rooted in a consistent diplomatic principle rather than endorsement of any alleged human rights violations. New Delhi has long opposed country-specific resolutions, arguing that such measures are often selective, politicised, and counter-productive. India maintains that naming and shaming through targeted resolutions undermines state sovereignty and weakens the credibility of the Human Rights Council itself.

It prefers dialogue, engagement and cooperation as more effective tools for improving human rights, instead of externally imposed investigative mechanisms focused on individual states. The vote also reflects New Delhi’s broader commitment to strategic autonomy, ensuring its foreign policy decisions are not aligned automatically with any geopolitical bloc. Additionally, India has important bilateral and regional interests with Iran, including connectivity and energy considerations. The vote signals India’s independent judgment at multilateral forums.

S Lakshmi, Hyderabad

Oppn must focus on human rights advocacy

This refers to your editorial ‘India’s vote against UNHRC is incomprehensive’. The Opposition has sought to re-tailor India’s UNHRC vote into a moral indictment of the government by selectively detaching it from established foreign-policy practice. The narrative being pushed frames the vote as a departure from India’s democratic values, while conveniently ignoring India’s long-standing scepticism of country-specific resolutions perceived as politicised.

This reframing relies on moral absolutism rather than institutional context, portraying diplomatic autonomy as ethical compromise. Media amplification further simplifies the issue into a binary of “rights versus realpolitik,” erasing precedent across successive governments. Notably, the Opposition avoids acknowledging that similar votes or abstentions were routine under earlier administrations. The strategy thus hinges less on substantive human-rights advocacy and more on converting a complex multilateral decision into a domestic political vulnerability for the government.

K R Venkata Narasimhan, Madurai

Temples as centres of spirituality

Temples and other pilgrimage centres should be treated as centres of spirituality where people learn to find ways to understand God. Although they are divine destinations, many people are seeing them as tourist hubs. The administrators should be given free hand to test the spiritual knowledge and eagerness of devotees. One notices that those without any sense of spirituality or devotion are visiting temples and making them seem like tourist hubs and business centres.

This is one of the reasons why almost all temples have reached saturation levels and are unable to manage the huge turnout and serpentine queues. These factors need to be looked into and duly addressed so that the ‘genuine’ devotees can realise the purpose of their visits like appropriate darshan and getting divine blessings.

M Chandrasekhar, Kadapa