Bharat, with its distinct civilizational and geopolitical grounding, must navigate a complex international landscape in which there are no permanent allies—only partners whose interests coincide for limited periods. As we approach this year’s Human Rights Day (10 December, 2025), this report brings into sharp relief the United States’ track record of major human rights violations, presenting an urgent lesson for Bharatiya foreign policy: strategic engagement with the U.S. (or any power) must be driven by Bharatiya interests, not illusions of moral kinship or enduring loyalty.​

U.S. Human Rights Record: Twelve Stark Incidents

Here we highlight few major incidents spanning 80 years, highlighting the chasm between U.S. rhetoric and practice on human rights. Each case is supported by damning statistics and forensic details that challenge the American claim of acting as a global moral arbiter.​

In 2025, a U.S. air strike on a migrant detention center in Yemen killed 61 African migrants and injured 56 others, with all casualties being civilians under humanitarian protection. Investigations found no military presence at the site. Survivors suffered life-altering injuries.​

The U.S. drone strike in Kabul, Afghanistan (2021), killed 10 civilians, seven of them children. The admitted error led to no punitive action against those responsible, prompting accusations of institutional impunity and a lack of meaningful accountability.​

During the battle for Mosul, Iraq (2017), U.S. airstrikes killed at least 105 civilians, with Pentagon reports admitting to targeting a residential house where only two ISIS fighters were present but civilians bore the brunt of the attack.​

The notorious attack on a Médecins Sans Frontières hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan (2015), killed 42 doctors, patients, and staff despite the hospital’s coordinates being shared with U.S. forces. The incident, which lasted nearly an hour, was ultimately blamed on human error. No criminal charges emerged.​

Among other documented atrocities: the killing of 41 civilians (21 children and 14 women) in Yemen (2009), the death of 100–120 civilians—including women, children, and the elderly—in Afghanistan (2009), and the 1988 downing of Iran Air Flight 655, killing 290 civilians including 66 children.​

Historic acts of devastation like the My Lai massacre (Vietnam, 1968, 504 unarmed civilians killed) and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945, with total deaths between 150,000 and 246,000 civilians) are widely acknowledged as among the most severe breaches of international humanitarian law.​

Diplomatic Implications: No Moral High Ground

Bharat’s approach to the U.S.—and to any global power—must be sober and transactional. The litany of U.S. violations illustrates that American self-interest will always override its professed values when their power or security is at stake. In most documented atrocities, punitive measures have been minimal, institutional inquiries have reduced civilian tolls, and accountability has been largely absent.​

Bharat, therefore, cannot afford to adopt a position of moral dependence or subordinate alliance with the U.S. The partnership must be grounded in mutual convenience and negotiated benefit, not in the expectation of shared values or consistent support across matters of principle. The world order is defined by shifting interests, and Bharat’s civilizational ethos must guide its pursuit of strategic autonomy.​

The Danger of Imaginary Self-Projection in Bharatiya Leadership

A significant challenge to Bharat’s ascent on the global stage is the persistence of an imaginary self-projection within segments of Bharatiya leadership and discourse—one that envisions Bharat as an immediate global hegemon or moral paragon without fully reconciling with present strategic realities. This projection, often romanticized, tends to overstate Bharat’s current capabilities or the moral high ground it holds, and underestimates the complex and ruthless nature of present-day geopolitics.

Despite Bharat’s growing economic and diplomatic weight, the world remains shaped by competing great powers driven by realpolitik rather than idealism. The U.S., as documented in numerous human rights violations, consistently prioritizes its interests—even at great ethical cost. China’s assertiveness and military modernization further attest to the hardened geopolitical environment. In this context, any leadership posture that rests on illusions of automatic global leadership or permanent alliances risks strategic miscalculation.

Recent analyses of Bharat’s foreign policy reflect this tension between aspiration and reality. While Bharat rightly pursues its ambition of becoming “Viksit Bharat” by 2047, there remains a crucial need for pragmatism and adaptive diplomacy. The international arena permits no entitlement based on civilizational history or idealistic self-perception; it demands readiness to navigate a “dog eat dog” world of shifting alliances and transactional partnerships.

Sober strategic assessment must replace self-created illusions. Bharatiya leaders must consolidate gains through measured strength, cultivating partnerships on mutual interests rather than misplaced loyalty or rhetoric. Only by embracing this pragmatic realism, free from grandiose fantasies, can Bharat build durable influence and achieve lasting security while safeguarding its civilizational values.

Lessons for Bharatiya Statecraft: Partners, Not Allies

The evidence presented by the report serves as a cautionary tale. American foreign policy operates under the logic of realpolitik and expediency, not purely shared ethical frameworks. Bharat’s experience with the U.S.—from support on security issues to divergences on trade and climate—has historically reflected this reality.

Bharat should therefore:

• Seek partnerships with the U.S. and others based on concrete, time-bound calculations of national interest.
• Prepare for the emergence of subsidiaries or dependent partners only if Bharat attains a position of overwhelming strength and leverage in the global order.
• Understand that relationships in the international sphere are transient and transactional; today’s partner could well be tomorrow’s rival, as dictated by the evolving calculus of power and interest.​

Conclusion: Navigating a Pragmatic Future

Rajiv Malhotra and similar thought leaders emphasize civilizational awareness and strategic realism in Bharatiya foreign policy. This report, with its detailed catalogue of facts and casualties, powerfully illustrates the consequences of geopolitical naivety. Bharat must never suspend its strategic self-interest in quest of ‘allies’; only partnerships and earned mutual respect can ensure progress and security in a world that remains, ultimately, “dog eat dog”—though diplomatic language would refer to it as a world of transactional, interest-driven engagement.

Source: Human Rights Day: 12 Incidents Exposing the U.S. Hypocrisy on Human Rights (1945 to 2025)