The Centre has drawn flak for abstaining from a vote in the UNHRC over the human rights situation in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, prompting the external affairs ministry to break its silence and express hope that the “relevant party will address the situation objectively and properly”.

India’s abstention has drawn criticism not only from the government’s detractors but also from within its own ecosystem, which likes a regular dose of muscular politics and diplomacy.

Since India’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva had not offered an explanation of the vote in the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on Thursday, external affairs ministry spokesperson Arindam Bagchi stepped in on Friday when asked about the vote at the weekly briefing.

“We have taken note of the OHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China. The human rights of the people of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region should be respected and guaranteed. We hope that the relevant party will address the situation objectively and properly,” Bagchi said.

At the same time, Bagchi maintained that India’s decision to abstain from the vote, on a West-backed move for a debate on the situation in Xinjiang in the UNHRC, was consistent with a long-held position that country-specific resolutions are not helpful.

In a span of 24 hours between Thursday and Friday, India abstained from three votes in the UNHRC, the latest on Friday on another West-initiated move on the human rights situation in Russia.

India had earlier in the day abstained from a vote on reinforcing the UN human rights chief to gather information on alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka.

India’s decision to abstain on the Xinjiang situation, in particular, was questioned by politicians across the spectrum, including Subramanian Swamy (BJP), Manish Tewari (Congress) and Priyanka Chaturvedi (Shiv Sena).

Responding to a critical tweet, former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal tweeted: “India’s position on HR issues shouldn’t be politicised which they are in UNHRC. India as policy abstains on country-specific resolutions….”

Sibal was foreign secretary between 2001 and 2002.

There have been a couple of instances of India getting off this beaten track and voting on a country-specific resolution in the UNHRC.

Both the most recent examples, in 2012 and 2013, related to Sri Lanka. India had voted against Sri Lanka on a resolution drafted by the US on war crimes. India’s vote was primarily dictated by domestic politics, with the Tamil parties mounting pressure on the government to pick up the cudgels on behalf of Sri Lankan Tamils.

As for Xinjiang, a vote would have meant adding another irritant to the already complicated bilateral relationship with China. External affairs minister S. Jaishankar had said as much last year to a question from the media on India’s position on Uyghurs.

“I don’t know if you are going to get a perspective from me as I have enough issues with China as it is. I would rather focus on the issues that are already on my plate,” he had said.

Given that India has for years bristled at any hint of a third-party offer to broker peace with Pakistan on Jammu and Kashmir, where New Delhi has long been accused of high-handedness, the Indian position prioritises sovereignty when it comes to international intervention on human rights.

In the case of Xinjiang, India has stuck to this position although China has often raised Kashmir at international forums and blocked India’s attempts to ban terrorists under the UNSC 1267 Resolution. It is this failure to pay back in kind that rankles the most with the ruling ecosystem.