Rubio declined to comment on anti-CEC protests, calling them India's internal political matter, while questioning the credibility of UN experts who criticised the handling of the demonstrations.
Rubio said India’s internal political matters were for its people to decide and Washington would not comment on them.
New Delhi,Oct 21, 2026 13:19 IST
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday questioned the credibility of UN experts who criticised India’s handling of anti-CEC protests, dismissing the term “UN experts” as an “oxymoron” and saying public demonstrations were a feature of democratic discourse.
His remarks came a day after more than 20 UN human rights experts called for an independent investigation into the handling of recent protests in India, alleging excessive force against peaceful demonstrators, arbitrary detentions and restrictions on public assemblies.
When asked about the demonstrations by opposition parties and student groups demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation, as well as the UN criticism, Rubio said Washington would not interfere in India’s internal political affairs.
“Well, the UN experts, yeah. My favourite. The UN experts, or is that an oxymoron?” he remarked when asked about the UN’s criticism.
Rubio said he would not offer an opinion on India’s domestic political matters, adding that political disagreements and people expressing their views were part of democratic discourse.
“This is a democracy. They have elections here. So I am not going to opine on their domestic political matters,” he said.
Drawing a distinction between peaceful demonstrations and violent unrest, Rubio said public expressions of dissent were a feature of democratic societies, clarifying that he was not referring specifically to India.
“I mean, obviously, I'm not talking about the riots like what you're seeing in Europe where they're vandalising and breaking into things and burning down buildings. I'm not talking about that,” he said.
“But in many ways, the fact that people are out there expressing themselves, I'm not talking about India, in any country in the world is the sign that this is a country where there's political discourse and so forth and differences of opinion,” he added.
Rubio also pointed to Cuba as a contrast, saying opposition voices there faced restrictions and risked imprisonment, oppression or exile.
“So, the fact that you just said a moment ago, as part of your question, the opposition, there's no, for example, like in Cuba, there is no opposition, like a rat that can actually go out and do anything without going to jail and being oppressed or exiled,” he said.
UN EXPERTS FLAG ALLEGED CRACKDOWN
More than 20 UN human rights experts on Tuesday called for an independent investigation into the handling of recent protests in India.
They alleged that authorities had used excessive force against peaceful demonstrators, detained people arbitrarily and imposed restrictions on public assemblies.
The experts urged Indian authorities to investigate reported human rights violations and end what they described as the excessive use of force against unarmed protesters.
India has previously rejected international criticism of its handling of the demonstrations, describing it as interference in the country’s internal affairs.
At the United Nations, Indian diplomat Barkha Tamrakar said human rights should not be used as an instrument of political pressure or selective targeting of countries.
She defended India’s constitutional safeguards and opposed what she described as negative characterisations based on unverified allegations or incomplete statistics.
The protests stem from opposition parties’ and student groups’ demand for Kumar’s resignation over the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Protesters have questioned the deletion of names from voter lists and raised allegations of irregularities in the exercise.
The Election Commission has defended the revision, saying it is intended to weed out duplicate entries and the names of deceased, shifted and otherwise ineligible voters, while allowing those affected to appeal.
- Ends