Michelle Bachelet, the former head of the United Nations Human Rights body, received the Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace, Disarmament and Development for 2024.

The award was presented on 19th November by Sonia Gandhi, who serves as the chairperson of the Congress Parliamentary Party (CPP). Bachelet is also known for being Chile’s only female president, holding office twice—from 2006 to 2010, and again from 2014 to 2018.

During the ceremony, Sonia Gandhi tried to establish a strong emotional link between Michelle Bachelet and former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. She said,

“Bachelet has seen, first-hand, loss, oppression, torture and exile in her early years. It is a remarkable coincidence how both these women were born and raised in times of strife. Their country, their people, their family and they themselves were victims of subjugation,”
highlighting what she described as shared experiences of struggle between the two leaders.

The event became even more controversial because it took place in the presence of Jagdish Tytler, who has long been accused in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. As soon as the event concluded, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) criticised the Congress party’s decision. The BJP highlighted Michelle Bachelet’s long history of taking positions that often appeared hostile to India, usually framed under ideas such as “minority rights” and “freedom of speech.”

In her acceptance speech, Michelle Bachelet praised Indira Gandhi while also linking her own political journey with human rights. She stated,

“She believed that nations could prosper only if they lived in harmony with one another. This belief feels even more urgent in today’s fragmented world. One of the causes that deeply moved Indira Gandhi is also what inspired me to enter politics to improve the welfare of the people. Early in my life, I realised that people’s wellbeing is closely linked to respect for human rights,”
making it clear that she saw her work as connected to Gandhi’s vision.

Bachelet also expressed her concerns about the state of global politics, remarking,

“To be honest, at times when I look at the world today, I feel not so optimistic. That is why I think multilateralism is more needed than ever. We need to give global responses to global challenges; otherwise, humanity will not have a good time.”
Her words suggested that she believes cooperation across nations is essential in the present global climate.

Obsession with Kashmir

Michelle Bachelet’s tenure at the United Nations Human Rights Council was marked by repeated interventions in India’s domestic matters. Her consistent focus on Kashmir began the very moment she assumed office in 2018. In her opening statement, she claimed that the council’s report on the region’s human-rights situation “has not been followed up with meaningful improvements, or even open and serious discussions on how the grave issues raised could be addressed.”

She further insisted,

“The people of Kashmir have exactly the same rights to justice and dignity as people all over the world, and we urge the authorities to respect them. The office continues to request permission to visit both sides of the Line of Control, and in the meantime, will continue its monitoring and reporting,”
pushing for access and oversight in a region India considers an internal matter.

In response, India firmly stated that issues like these are handled “addressed constructively with respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity in a transparent and credible manner,” and expressed regret over her remarks.

Despite the clear reply from India, Bachelet continued to comment on the matter. Her criticism intensified after India abrogated Article 370 on 5th August 2019, a provision that never had permanent status in the Indian Constitution.

On 9th September 2019, during the 42nd session of the UNHRC, she declared,

“I am deeply concerned about the impact of recent actions by the government of India on the human rights of Kashmiris, including restrictions on internet communications and peaceful assembly, and the detention of local political leaders and activists,”
reacting strongly to India’s internal decision.

However, the article she was defending was discriminatory toward women, lower castes, and multiple sections of the society. It had been repeatedly used by local politicians, vested-interest groups, and separatist factions to block reforms, exert pressure on New Delhi, and keep the region away from mainstream integration. Yet Bachelet seemed disturbed by the major constitutional change.

She went a step further by asking India to remove restrictions, lift curfews, and involve “the people of Kashmir in the decision-making process.” She overlooked the fact that the temporary restrictions placed by the government were specifically aimed at preventing bloodshed and any form of widespread violence. Her statements also ignored the atrocities inflicted by Pakistan in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, which rarely found mention in her comments.

Unsurprisingly, then–Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan quickly praised her statements. He even urged the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to set up an investigation panel to “probe” alleged human-rights violations in the valley.

Bachelet later targeted India over the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam. She said,

“The recent National Register of Citizens verification process in the North-East Indian state of Assam has caused great uncertainty and anxiety, with some 1.9 million people excluded from the final list published on August 31. I appeal to the government to ensure due process during the appeals process, prevent deportation or detention, and ensure people are protected from statelessness,”
openly questioning a legal, security-related process of identifying citizens.

The NRC was designed to ensure proper identification of citizens, strengthen development planning, and stop unchecked illegal immigration from neighbouring countries. But Bachelet’s statements indicated a preference for a loose system, one that could further allow infiltration from Bangladesh. Such infiltration has long been linked to demographic changes, strain on resources, and rising criminal activities.

Her interventions continued through 2019, including her attempt to frame the situation as “Kashmiris under attack” after the Pulwama terror attack. By linking India’s counter-measures and tragedies to human-rights narratives, she continued shaping a negative international perception of the country.

Continuous rhetoric surrounding Kashmir and repeated aggression towards India

In 2020, Michelle Bachelet met with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) contact group on Jammu and Kashmir in Geneva. Following this meeting, she alleged that “human rights violations have worsened in the last year,” accusing India of “excessive use of force,” including “pellet guns, home demolitions, imprisonment of civilians, torture, demographic engineering, etc.”

The OIC members who briefed her include some of the world’s worst human-rights offenders—countries where non-Muslims face routine discrimination, violence, and systemic denial of basic freedoms. Pakistan, which is also part of this group, has an especially troubling record, particularly regarding its treatment of minorities. Yet these countries accused India of human-rights violations, and Bachelet repeated their narrative without balance or context.

Bachelet also expressed discomfort over the possibility that the abrogation of Article 370 could reduce the dominance of certain political groups in Kashmir, while simultaneously encouraging India to allow further illegal migration into the country.

Her comments continued in later years. On 13th September 2021, during the 48th session of the Human Rights Council, she again raised Kashmir, stating,

“The restrictions on public assembly and frequent temporary communication blackouts by Indian authorities continue in Jammu and Kashmir, while hundreds of people remain in detention for exercising their right to the freedom of expression, and journalists face ever-growing pressure,”
ignoring the significant peace, development, and social progress that had become visible in Kashmir after 2019.

She also highlighted UAPA cases in India without acknowledging India’s legal safeguards, judiciary, or the ground realities of terrorism and separatism.

Once again, India responded firmly. The Ministry of External Affairs stated,

“India’s approach to global promotion and protection of human rights is based on our own experience as a pluralistic and inclusive society and vibrant democracy. Any shortcomings in upholding human rights must be addressed in a transparent and impartial manner, anchored in respect for national sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs of states,”
making it clear that India rejects external interference in its sovereign decisions.

Narrative of Muslim victimhood

In the global left-liberal space, criticising India on minority rights—especially when it concerns Muslims—has almost become a predictable pattern. It hardly matters what the ground reality is; such groups rarely miss a chance to project India negatively. Michelle Bachelet followed that same pattern during her tenure. In her annual report to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in 2019, she once again chose to question India.

She stated,

“We are receiving reports that indicate increasing harassment and targeting of minorities – in particular, Muslims and people from historically disadvantaged and marginalised groups, such as Dalits and Adivasis,”
placing India in the global spotlight with yet another sweeping remark.

A year after this statement, Bachelet turned her attention to India’s Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). She urged the Indian government to reconsider what she described as a “worrying” law, insisting that NGOs and so-called “human rights” groups should be allowed to freely receive foreign funding and operate without constraints. Her criticism was clear when she said,

“India has long had a strong civil society, which has been at the forefront of groundbreaking human rights advocacy within the country and globally. But I am concerned that vaguely defined laws are increasingly being used to stifle these voices,”
implying that India was deliberately weakening civil society organisations.

What Bachelet ignored in her comments was that several of these organisations had been directly involved in obstructing development schemes, engaging in questionable activities, and carrying out religious conversions under the cover of humanitarian work. The FCRA, which was originally introduced in 2010 by the Congress-led government, was later amended to ensure transparency, accountability, and the prevention of foreign funds being used for activities harmful to public interest.

India responded firmly. After Bachelet’s criticism, New Delhi reminded the UN body that

“Violations of law, however, cannot be condoned under the pretext of human rights. A more informed view of the matter was expected of a UN body,”
making it clear that the law exists to protect the nation’s security, not silence rightful voices.

India emphasised its strong institutional framework—an independent judiciary, a robust grievance redressal system, and a National Human Rights Commission with “Category A” status under the Paris Principles. As an Indian official explained,

“These mechanisms are fully capable of addressing all allegations of violations of human rights anywhere in India. India has been at the forefront of the promotion and protection of human rights in line with its international obligations and remains committed to doing so in the future,”
as reported by The Times of India.

Double standards over CAA

Michelle Bachelet, who repeatedly highlighted her “deep concern” for minority rights in India, did not show the same level of sympathy for persecuted religious minorities in Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Her stance became most visible when she approached the Supreme Court of India in early March 2020, challenging the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Her office at the UN Human Rights Council even filed a request for third-party intervention in a petition opposing the law—ironically claiming it was in the interest of human rights.

The Government of India reacted sharply, asserting,

“The CAA is an internal matter of India and concerns the sovereign right of the Indian Parliament to make laws. We strongly believe that no foreign party has any locus standi (rights) on issues pertaining to India’s sovereignty,”
firmly rejecting her attempt to interfere.

Despite the clear stand taken by India, Bachelet continued criticising the CAA. She argued that the religious-based criteria in the law could violate international commitments, and she repeated this claim even as late as 2024. Her position suggested that helping persecuted Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, and Parsis somehow violated global standards—yet the violence faced by non-Muslim minorities in neighbouring Islamic states did not seem to concern her.

Another moment that revealed her selective outrage occurred when Saudi Arabia deported hundreds of Rohingyas, including small children, to Bangladesh. Bachelet remained notably silent on that incident. But when India deported only five Rohingyas, she reacted sharply, choosing again to criticise India rather than address far larger violations elsewhere.

Final overview

Michelle Bachelet remains one of the most polarising officials to have led the UN Human Rights body. Her tenure was shaped by actions that often appeared driven by a consistent hostility towards India. Despite her strong words on global human rights, her interventions repeatedly focused on defending only a specific community of a particular religion, while ignoring the suffering of others.

A revealing detail from her past highlights the ideological networks she supported. In 2009, as President of Chile, she awarded George Soros the Bernardo O’Higgins Order of Merit—the highest civilian honour given to non-Chilean citizens—recognising his

“unwavering commitment to democracy and open societies.”
Soros’s record regarding India is widely known. He has repeatedly spoken against India’s elected government, triggered controversies with his remarks, and has been associated with attempts to influence political outcomes in various nations.

Against this backdrop, the Congress party’s decision to honour Bachelet is not surprising. The party has, on several occasions, aligned itself with individuals or organisations known for criticising India during critical moments. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has therefore strongly objected to Bachelet receiving the Indira Gandhi Peace Prize, pointing out that she has consistently targeted India, misused her international position, and attempted to interfere in India’s internal matters in a negative and unfair manner.