From Sanctions to Silence: The European Union Human Rights Double Standard on India
January 28, 2026The European Union frequently presents itself as a global defender of human rights and humanitarian values, describing these principles as central to its foreign and trade policy. European officials often argue that access to the European market is a privilege that depends on respect for democracy, rule of law, and fundamental freedoms. In many instances, the European Union has demonstrated a willingness to restrict or suspend trade relations when serious abuses occur. These actions are presented as evidence that moral considerations can outweigh economic interests. However, recent policy choices raise serious questions about whether these principles are applied consistently.
Myanmar is one of the clearest examples of the European Union acting decisively on humanitarian grounds. After a military coup that led to mass killings, persecution of Rohingya Muslims, and the use of forced labor, the European Union suspended Everything But Arms trade preferences. This decision removed duty free access to European markets and was justified as a response to grave violations of international law. The message was that systematic violence and repression would not be tolerated, even if trade losses followed.
Belarus faced similar consequences. Following disputed elections, widespread electoral fraud, and violent repression of peaceful protesters, the European Union suspended trade cooperation and investment agreements. Political prisoners and the silencing of opposition voices were cited as key reasons for the measures. Restrictions targeted exports, financial flows, and state owned enterprises. European leaders framed these actions as a defense of democratic norms and basic freedoms.
Syria experienced one of the most severe trade cut offs ever imposed by the European Union. In response to war crimes, deliberate attacks on civilians, and the use of chemical weapons, the European Union introduced near total bans on oil trade, transport, banking, and investment. These measures were designed to isolate a government accused of crimes against humanity and to deny it economic resources. Once again, humanitarian principles were presented as the driving force behind policy.
Russia also became the target of sweeping sanctions following the invasion of Ukraine. The European Union imposed broad import and export restrictions, suspended trade agreements, and limited access to finance and technology. These measures were justified by evidence of war crimes and systemic human rights abuses. Despite the economic cost to European industries, leaders argued that accountability and international law required a strong response.
Even countries considered partners have faced penalties. Cambodia lost part of its Everything But Arms benefits due to democratic backsliding, suppression of opposition parties, and violations of labor rights. Sri Lanka temporarily lost GSP Plus trade preferences because of torture, enforced disappearances, and lack of accountability. Access was restored only after commitments to reform. Together, these cases suggest that the European Union is willing to use trade as leverage when humanitarian standards are violated.
Against this background, the European Union pursuit of what has been described as the mother of all deals with India stands out as a striking contradiction. India faces well documented allegations of repression, mass surveillance, arbitrary detentions, and the ongoing militarization of Kashmir. International organizations and independent observers have raised repeated concerns about restrictions on civil liberties and the treatment of minorities. Yet rather than imposing conditions or demanding accountability, the European Union is moving toward deeper trade and investment cooperation.
This contradiction is further intensified by India direct support to Russia during the war in Ukraine. India has imported large volumes of Russian oil, providing Moscow with a crucial financial lifeline at a time when sanctions were designed to cut off revenue. In addition, Indian companies have supplied Russia with military related and dual use goods, supporting Russian industrial and technological capacity during the conflict. These actions directly undermine the objectives of European sanctions policy.
While other states are sanctioned or face strict conditions for rights abuses and wartime conduct, India is rewarded with expanded trade, investment, and political legitimacy. This disparity reveals a clear double standard in European Union policy. Humanitarian principles appear firm when applied to weaker or less strategic partners, but flexible when economic size and geopolitical importance are involved. The message is that accountability depends not only on behavior, but also on power.
This outcome is not inevitable. The European Union still has both the ability and the responsibility to align its trade policy with its stated values. Conditioning any major agreement with India on strict and enforceable human rights standards would demonstrate seriousness and consistency. Binding clauses, independent monitoring mechanisms, and meaningful consequences for violations could ensure that economic cooperation does not come at the expense of human dignity.
By insisting on these conditions, the European Union can reinforce the idea that its values are universal rather than selective. It can show that economic partnerships do not require moral compromise and that large and influential partners are held to the same standards as others. Doing so would not only protect the credibility of European policy but also reaffirm its commitment to human rights as more than a rhetorical principle.
