The war in Gaza and Israeli divisions

The ongoing war in Gaza dominated Augustā€™s headlines. Anger over the conflict grew not only worldwide but also inside Israel. Roughly 600 former Israeli security officials ā€” including ex-chiefs of Israelā€™s Mossad intelligence and Shin Bet security agency, as well as senior Israel Defense Forces generals ā€” sent a letter to US President Donald Trump urging him to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end the fight. They argued Israel had already achieved its military goals against the Hamas terror group and that hostage negotiations could not progress until the war stopped. Further, they could not agree to any deal to release the remaining hostages while the conflict still raged.

Yet Netanyahuā€™s government stood firm, with hard-right figures retaining sway. Former Israeli government official Josef Olmert’s phrase ā€œright-wing nuttersā€ was used to describe their continued grip on policy.

Greenland: Denmark confronts Washington

Another diplomatic headache emerged in the Arctic. Denmark summoned Americaā€™s top diplomat over covert US operations in Greenland. These efforts were reportedly led by US intelligence officials, who, in Atulā€™s words, took ā€œa page out of [Russian President] Vladimir Putinā€™s bookā€ to move Greenlanders toward closer integration with the US. Copenhagen, Denmarkā€™s capital, viewed the influence operations as a serious breach and summoned the ambassador to lodge a formal protest.

Armenia, Azerbaijan and Trumpā€™s quest for a legacy

Amid the turmoil, Trump appeared to score a diplomatic win. Reportedly, he brokered a peace deal between Azerbaijan and Armenia, a long-running flashpoint after wars in Nagorno-Karabakh and disputes over Nakhchivan, the capital of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic ā€” an enclave of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan had already expelled ethnic Armenians from Karabakh, but the new agreement was cast as an opening for stability.

Europeā€™s immigration battles

Migration once again inflamed European politics. In Italy, right-wing Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni ā€” labeled ā€œfar right, even fascistā€ by some critics ā€” reacted furiously to a European Court of Justice ruling that struck down her governmentā€™s policy of outsourcing migrant processing to Albania.

Meanwhile, Britain and France formalized an arrangement to return illegal migrants crossing the English Channel in small boats. United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer claimed this ā€œone-in, one-outā€ system would ā€œsend a clear messageā€ to illegal channel-crossing immigrants. Yet Rory Stewart, co-host of The Rest is Politics podcast, argued only wholesale deportations would halt crossings. Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform UK party, pushed even further, proposing a repeal of human rights laws to permit mass expulsions of asylum seekers. He claimed such steps were ā€œabsolutely essentialā€ to prevent ā€œmajor civil disorder.ā€

Japanā€™s defense pivot

Japan also made headlines with a $6.5 billion contract to supply advanced frigates to Australia. The ships are highly automated, with crews of only 90 workers ā€” half the crew size of existing Australian vessels. For Tokyo, this was the biggest defense export since it lifted its post-war arms ban in 2014. The move underscored Japanā€™s push to remilitarize and become a ā€œnormal nation,ā€ a shift certain to unsettle Beijing and other regional powers.

Africa and Latin America: overlooked upheavals

In Africa, violence raged in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo with no sign of ending. In Latin America, Bolivia lurched to the right. The Movement Toward Socialism party, dominant for two decades, collapsed to just 3% support. Centrist Rodrigo Paz Pereira led the first round of voting and will face right-wing former President Jorge ā€œTutoā€ Quiroga in the runoff.

Elon Musk, Trump and market interference

Tesla CEO Elon Muskā€™s fortunes were also in the spotlight: The auto manufacturer awarded him shares worth about $24 billion, boosting his stake to 15%, after he threatened to quit. His SpaceX Starship, the worldā€™s most powerful rocket, completed its tenth test flight ā€” it reached outer space and returned to Earth successfully.

Meanwhile, Trump has reportedly considered converting the CHIPS and Science Act into equity, taking a 10% stake in the Intel semiconductor manufacturer. He initially demanded that Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan step down, but later backed down. He also Goldman Sachs chief David Solomon, criticizing the bankā€™s tariff forecasts and suggesting Solomon ā€œfocus on being a DJ.ā€

Atul underscores Trumpā€™s paradoxical stance: a self-styled champion of free markets resorting to aggressive state interference.

Tariffs and trade turmoil

On the trade front, Washington and Beijing extended their tariff truce another 90 days, with November 10 set as the next deadline. Conversely, on August 27, Trump blindsided India by slapping on most Indian exports. FOI, of which Atul is a partner and Glenn a senior partner, had predicted this as early as April 2024, contrary to Indian officials and business leaders who insisted tariffs were impossible given Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modiā€™s friendship with Trump. ā€œI guess we were right, they were wrong,ā€ Atul gloats.

The three big stories of August 2025

Atul continues by identifying this episodeā€™s three most pressing issues:

1. Donald Trumpā€™s Assault on the Federal Government.
2. Dramatically Deteriorating US Economic Governance.
3. The Story of Alaska and Washington, DC Summits.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post FOĀ° Exclusive: Global Lightning Round up of August 2025 appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Missed opportunities on the global stage

Modi has failed to establish meaningful and assertive interactions with external powers such as the US, UK, France, Canada, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Australia and Turkey. He also struggles to address issues with troublesome neighbors like Pakistan and China, who have deliberately intruded into ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s territory. Although he traveled around the globe to promote ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s foreign policy and diplomacy, he to convince foreign powers, including America, that India has been a victim of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism for decades and not the other way around.Ā 

Perhaps due to this, Pakistan ā€” despite being an epicentre of Global Terrorism, including cross-border terror against India for the past many decades ā€” has been adorned as Vice Chair of the Anti-terrorism Committee by the UN Security Council (UNSC), which is an unparalleled paradox.

Additionally, he has not secured a for India in the UN Security Council or membership in other prominent forums like (a trilateral security pact between Australia, the UK and the US), the Nuclear Suppliers Group (), the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty () and (an intergovernmental political forum consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US).Ā 

The recent security crisis and the Indiaā€“Pakistan war have exposed flaws in ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s national security and foreign policy. The terror attack in on April 22, 2025, killed 26 innocent tourists in Baisaran valley of India-administered Jammu and Kashmir, revealing serious lapses in security management and civilian safety. In retaliation, India launched on May 7, 2025, which demonstrated the capabilities of its forces across all three wings. However, the announced on May 10 showed that Modi succumbed to US President Donald Trumpā€™s pressure. The ceasefire benefited Pakistan because India had gained the upper hand in the ongoing India-Pakistan conflict. This event significantly India’s diplomatic landscape.Ā 

In 2014, Modi his tenure with enthusiasm to transform India into a haven for foreign investments by streamlining rules and regulations to make investment easier. However, bureaucratic disputes and a rising middleman culture discouraged his well-planned efforts. An excessive concentration of power within the Prime Ministerā€™s office and among a small group of Indian Administrative Service () officers led to the formation of a confidant coterie. His reliance on this small circle marginalized democratic governance, frustrating senior ministers, party leaders and top officers.Ā Ā 

Governance crisis and administrative decay

The Bharatiya Janata Party () government at the center, along with its own party governments in many states, has failed to control rising prices, poverty, unemployment, law and order, ever-mounting , undue interference by party workers and officials in daily administration and declining morals and increasing promiscuity among party cadres. This indicates a weakening of the top leaders’ control over party members and office bearers.Ā 

The high-profile of a sitting BJP Member of Parliament (MP), Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, accused of molestation and sexual offenses under the POCSO Act by women wrestlers Vinesh Phogat, Sakshi Singh and other minor girls, has garnered attention. Unfortunately, the First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged against this MP have been . Similar cases against BJP leader (who has now obtained bail) and , ā€œBum-Bum,ā€ a BJP district president, are particularly concerning.Ā 

Crimes committed by party workers have severely tarnished the party’s reputation, which claims to establish a new culture in the country. Modi has also for the BJP through Electoral Bonds and granted extraordinary favors to billionaires such as Gautam Adani, Mukesh Ambani and others.Ā 

The central government has waived large loans for wealthy businessman, Gautam Adani, while thousands of have gone bankrupt and suffered due to natural calamities. ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s wealthiest industrialist, Mukesh Ambani, enjoys Z+ security by the Indian state along with other VIPs and politicians. Taxes paid by ordinary citizens fund the cost of this security. Ironically, while elites enjoy top security, common citizens often fall victim to crime due to a shortage of police personnel and ineffective law enforcement.

Furthermore, the BJP is the powers of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Election Commission, Enforcement Directorate and Income Tax Department to intimidate politicians with non-BJP affiliations who are facing various criminal charges. This can be seen in like Ajit Pawar, Chhagan Bhujbal, Ashok Chauhan, Hemanta Biswas Sharma, Subhendu Adhikari, Prafulla Patel and many others. These politicians are pressured to join the BJP and support its interests, leveraging these agencies. An ironic aspect is that once these tarnished politicians join the BJP, the cases against them are often withdrawn.

Another serious concern is the declining health of Indian democracy. In a parliamentary system, opposition parties and their leaders play a crucial role. However, the of opposition members from the House to prevent meaningful debates and discussions on national issues, merely to serve the ruling partyā€™s interests, represents a negation or violation of democracy.

Another troubling development that has caused an internal crisis is the ethnic riots in that started last year. Yet, the Prime Minister has not visited the region to ease the suffering of the affected community or to restore the declining confidence in the police and security forces.Ā 

The Indian Army’s (a recruitment model that allows youth to serve in the armed forces for four years) has sparked controversy. Politicians, who do not retire from active politics even in their seventies, face ridicule as young men in their twenties prepare to leave the army after just four years of service. People express about the scheme’s long-term implications, especially given the rising cross-border terrorism from Pakistan and China’s consistent intrusions into Indian territory. Former Chief of Defense Staff (CDS) General Bipin Rawat reportedly the scheme’s merits, and his mysterious death in a helicopter crash highlights his cautious judgment today.

The overemphasis on the Hindu-Muslim also threatens national unity and social cohesion. The use of slogans like ā€œJai Shri Ramā€ (ā€œHail Lord Ramaā€) to advance the BJPā€™s political goals has caused alienation among Muslims and other minorities, actions that conflict with the ideals of Lord Ram and ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s diverse culture. The government must stop communal segregation and actively include Muslim and other minority communities in ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s growth and progress.

±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s economy remains , despite grand claims to become the worldā€™s fourth-largest economy and its ambition to reach third place. In 2025, the national debt has sharply increased to approximately $248 billion due to ill-planned spending, misappropriation of funds and large-scale embezzlement. These issues have fostered a parallel black economy that threatens the countryā€™s economic stability.

media agencies are another worrisome aspect of Mr. Modiā€™s politics. They undermine the principle of democracy by violating the idea that the media serves as the fourth pillar of democracy. News channels based in Noida are mostly labeled as ā€œā€, and many consider them biased and sold. The print media in the country does not dare to challenge or hold the government accountable, drawing parallels to the of 1975.Ā Ā Ā 

A call for renewal and accountability

The popularity and support for the BJP have declined, with only minor exceptions in some states. As its foremost leader, Modi cannot escape the responsibility that comes with his prominent role in the party and the country. His advancing age, declining mental focus, the rise of vested interests and the absence of a strong opposition have created obstacles in governance. Additionally, giving undue favors to elites and corrupt elements within the BJP has prevented the leadership from ensuring independent, fair and effective decision-making. These issues have shattered the hopes, aspirations and expectations of the people not only within India but also across the international community. The grand vision of making India the (ā€œworld guruā€ or ā€œteacher of the worldā€) of ancient times again has proven ineffective, as seen after Operation Sindoor, when none of its allies supported it.

As Modi approaches the end of his likely last term, he must carefully assess his personal shortcomings and reemphasize the BJPā€™s original promises to build a new culture of honest, fair, corruption-free, responsive and responsible democratic governance ā€” completely different from the previous Congress governments in India. 

[ edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post The Current Politics of Narendra Modi Exposes the Limits of His Leadership appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Atul Singh: Thank you, Glenn, and great to be back. Last time, we discussed Donald Trump and Harvard. And now we are moving to my home turf. (Laughs)

Glenn Carle: And Iā€™m happy to pass this one, since if anything is complicated or intractable at the least, this subject seems to be. We’ll talk about today, broadly speaking, the Indiaā€“Pakistan conflict, which is age-old, but specifically using as a starting point the April 22 attack by actually still-unknown, I believe ā€” but youā€™ll tell us ā€” terrorists in Kashmir.

These were Muslim-inspired terrorists, clearly, who targeted Hindu men, and killed 26 people. In response, on May 1, India struck nine sites in Kashmir and Pakistan itself, which it characterized ā€” ā€œitā€ being India ā€” as military or terrorist sites. And the authorities in India went out of their way to underscore that they were not striking Pakistani army sites, but only those supporting terrorist training or civilian sites. Pakistan, of course, was outraged, and a week later ā€” yesterday, in fact, on May 7 ā€” itself responded to the response, attacking a number of sites in India, and thatā€™s where we largely stand.

Atul Singh: Actually, I think they responded the same day, Glenn.

Glenn Carle: Aha. Well, with artillery shells and so on. I donā€™t think they launched a major strike. I think there was a bit of fire exchanged all along the Line of Control. And as I understood, along the entire Line of Control, which, thatā€™d be a huge number of exchanges. But yesterday, they responded, I guess in their formal sense, by launching, I think, drone attacks. But the details, as important as they are ā€” and you can fill us in more fully ā€” frankly, I think are secondary to the classic questions, which no one has ever really been able to answer or solve at least, which is: What happened? Okay, whoā€™s done this and why? And then we can go from there.

Roots of the Indiaā€“Pakistan conflict

Atul Singh: So what happened was clearly a terrorist strike ā€” clearly an Islamist terrorist strike. Indian authorities convinced that these are troops ā€” I wonā€™t get into names, we could, they are unimportant. These were groups trained in Pakistan. Perhaps they were Pakistani nationals, too. The hand of Inter-Services Intelligence and SSD ā€” the Special Services Group, if Iā€™m getting it correct, their commando force ā€” seems to be there. Itā€™s deep into Indian territory. And this is part of a pattern, because ā€” as we discussed in one of our earlier discussions in a different format, on a different platform, you can find it on YouTube ā€” we discussed how this has been part of a pattern in which Pakistan has escalated strikes on Indian security forces, particularly in Poonch and Rajouri, which are the two border districts along the Line of Control in Jammu. And theyā€™ve also been practicing ethnic cleansing there.

The long game that Pakistan is playing is converting the population of Jammu and Kashmir to exclusively Muslim population. Theyā€™ve achieved this in Kashmir. They have managed to conduct a pogrom of Kashmiri Pandits in 1990, and now they are trying the same thing in Jammu. But in Jammu, they were targeting mainly security personnel, and that did not make the news. And in Belgaum ā€” or rather, a few kilometers away from Pahalgam in a valley ā€” they targeted tourists, because Indians were saying tourism has replaced terrorism, and Pakistan wanted to bring Kashmir back.

Pakistan, of course, has reasons for tensions. The Pakistani army is extremely unpopular right now. The most ā€” yes, you are trying to say something.

Glenn Carle: Yeah. Let me take a step back for those of us who are more simple-minded, or at least further away from the problem. So what initially is in dispute? So, as everyone will know, in 1947, the British finally left the subcontinent, and India and Pakistan became two separate independent states. Pakistan, overwhelmingly Muslim; India, overwhelmingly Hindu.

Atul Singh: Well, letā€™s caveat that a bit. Pakistan basically completed the ethnic cleansing of all its minorities ā€” Hindu and Sikh ā€” and that included Pakistan, included then-East Pakistan, which is modern-day Bangladesh. India still today has more Muslims than Pakistan, so India never quite had the same ethnic cleansing of Pakistan. Letā€™s be very clear. India tried to be a socialist and secular republic.

Glenn Carle: A multi-ethnic republic.

Atul Singh: A multi-ethnic, socialist and secular republic. Yeah, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multicultural. The great slogan was, ā€œUnity in Diversity.ā€ Anekta Mein Ekta. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Indian Prime Minister, put in a very different vision of India to Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who was the founder of Pakistan.

Glenn Carle: And Pakistanā€™s existence, definition of self, really, is as an Islamic state. But more to the point for our discussion today is another unresolved point in the creation of Pakistan, India and independence from Great Britain, and that is the status of the two states, or royal princedoms, of Jammu and Kashmir.

Atul Singh: That was one. That was one. Theyā€™re two different regions in one princely state.

Glenn Carle: Right, right.

Atul Singh: And back in the day, that included Ladakh.

Glenn Carle: Which refused to become part of India initially, or Pakistan. Weā€™ll skip the details of 1947ā€“48. The prince agreed, under some duress, to become part of India. Pakistan refused to accept that and essentially invaded the western part.

Atul Singh: Hold fire, hold fire. So Glenn, the history is that the prince imagined to run an Asian Switzerland, and he held out to be independent. He held out for independence. But once the Pakistani regulars ā€” especially modern-day Pashtuns, or they were then Pashtuns, too ā€” when the Pakistanis used these Pashtuns to invade Kashmir, this triggered alarm. And then he packed off someone ā€” or rather, Sardar Patel packed off someone. He was ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s first home minister, and he signed the instrument of accession. And then Kashmir became a part of India.

And in fact, it was thanks to Pashtun tribesmen raping Belgian nuns for three days and stopping, that we have Srinagar ā€” because they, the Indian troops, flew into Srinagar airfield, and the Pashtuns were there right at the next hill. And so it was hill-to-hill fighting, and India began pushing them out. And then, of course, the UN intervened. And India at that time, in particular, being led by Jawaharlal Nehru, believed greatly in the United Nations and stopped the fighting and thought that the UN would decide. And as per the UN agreements, there was to be demilitarization and then a plebiscite. Of course, none of this transpired. The Line of Control is the de facto border.

Terrorism as state strategy

Atul Singh: Lest we forget, part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir was taken by China ā€” especially Aksai Chin. They built a road through it. And thatā€™s the Line of Actual Control. And Pakistanis ceded some of their territory to China: Shaksgam Valley. So there are three powers now contending over this territory. Each one of them claims a border unacceptable to the other. Actually, Pakistan and China may have borders acceptable to each other, but certainly not India vis-Ć -vis both Pakistan and China.

And the current tension playing out goes back right to 1947. Kashmir has been a bone of contention between these two countries. And at heart is the Pakistani belief that it is the homeland of the Muslims, and therefore all Muslim-majority areas in the Indian subcontinent should belong to Pakistan.

And at heart of the matter for India is that we are a secular, multi-ethnic, multicultural, multi-religious democracy. Therefore, Kashmir is a shining example of that integration that we have managed, despite being in a difficult neighborhood and despite starting from a low base. So both these countries are sentimental about this issue, emotional about this issue, because it ties in with their identity.

Glenn Carle: And to solve the issue, Pakistan and India have gone to war three times ā€” but the costs of trying to resolve the issueā€”

Atul Singh: Arguably four times ā€” 1999, Kargil, too.

Glenn Carle: ā€”have always been greater than the rewards obtainable by conventional military. So what has happened?

Atul Singh: Donā€™t know! I mean, there is an argument to be made: In ā€˜48, Pakistan was then pretty much bankrupt. If the Indians had pushed on, they would have had all of Kashmir. But they didnā€™t.

Glenn Carle: But ā€œifā€ is a small word with a large importance.

Atul Singh: Thatā€™s true. And in 1971, India did liberate Bangladesh, and militarily it was on the ascendant. It had thousands of prisoners of war, but as many people say, including, by the way, many Americans and many British diplomats, India won the war but lost the peace. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto out-negotiated Indira Gandhi. Indians have long had a fixation for tall, fair-skinned Pakistanis ā€” the Indian elite, especially the socialist elite. And these Pakistani prisoners of war were fed very well, actually. They were given extra rations, which the Indians werenā€™t.

So there is an argument there. But the reality is the 1999 costs were really high. We lost some of the flower of our youth in that Kargil border. And today, it is impossible, perhaps, for any country to claim an inch of territory without a lot of loss of blood and treasure.

Glenn Carle: Well, whether a conventional military solution might have occurred, it hasnā€™t. And so you have Jammu and Kashmir divided ā€” two-thirds of the territory controlled by India, and now an integral part of India since 2019, and one-third controlled by Pakistan. Pakistanā€™s response to this ā€” and they do deny the following, but it is a fact ā€” has been: ā€œWell, we canā€™t solve the problem militarily, and we arenā€™t going to concede the issue. So we will use terrorist surrogates to destabilize ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s control, terrorize the population, and changeā€ ā€” as Atul Singh mentioned before ā€” ā€œthe ethnic composition, religious composition, of the disputed territory.ā€

So they, through the ISI, which is Pakistanā€™s intelligence serviceā€”

Atul Singh: Inter-Services Intelligence.

Glenn Carle: They have, for decades, trained and then sent on missions various terrorist groups. Now I didnā€™t mention the two names before, and this isnā€™t supposed to be a terrorist brief, but Iā€™ll mention the names. The two principal groups that seem to have been involved conducting terrorist operations in Kashmir, but elsewhere too, against Indians and against Americans are groups called Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Now, theyā€™re relevant primarily, I would argue, for two reasons. One, you can call them, broadly speaking, fundamentalist Islamists who have a militant view of how to live Islam, which is by the sword. It must be imposed, and anyone who does not accept it must be killed.

But they have been exploited by and fostered by the Pakistani intelligence service. It is believed that one of those two groups conducted the attack on April 22. We havenā€™t had definitive proof or evidence to that effect, but it is highly likely. Now, the Pakistanis always have denied that they have had anything to do with terrorism and that they oppose it. Itā€™s true the Pakistanis have opposed terrorism when it interferes with their interests, when it is Muslim-inspired, as has happened since the beginning of Pakistanā€™s existence in the North-West Frontier Province and elsewhere.

But it is not true, and they are just being cynical and duplicitous, when they deny to me, or to the CIA, or to Indians, that they have anything to do with terrorism. The evidence is overwhelming and multiple that their intelligence service has fostered, trained and supports these groups. And they clearly did that in 2008 in the attack on the Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbaiā€”

Atul Singh: Where youā€™ve stayed.

Glenn Carle: Where I have stayed ā€” and many other attacks. So thatā€™s the tool they have been using, and what seems to have been the case.

Pakistanā€™s radicalization and the Article 370 debate

Now, how does a state respond to that? We saw what India has done in the last week, but it is a dilemma for a state that does not use terrorism, happily, to try to find a way to parry and stop the use of a terrorist organization. So take it from there.

Atul Singh: Yeah, Glenn, before I take it from there, letā€™s look at the history of terror as an instrument of state policy. To be fair to the Pakistanis, till 1971, they did not use as much terrorism. Yes, they used irregulars in ā€˜47. So, ā€˜71 was traumatic for Pakistan because they lost Bangladesh. And that was partly because of their own racism, their own intolerance, their own policy of ethnic cleansing and mass rape, and being undemocratic. It had become a military dictatorship. And the likes of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had a big role there because he wanted to be Prime Minister, despite the fact heā€™d lost the majority.

So in any case, perhaps Pakistan and Bangladesh could never exist as one country. It was like the union between Egypt and Syria. It never quite succeeded, was a short-lived affair. Here, it wasnā€™t a short-lived affair. It continued from 1947 to 1971, so it continued 24 years. But once that happens, and once India develops a nuclear program and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto sets in train ā€” he doesnā€™t, but at least he doesnā€™t oppose it ā€” this radicalization of Pakistan as a Muslim nation, he declares the Ahmadis to be non-Muslims. Then he himself is hanged by General Zia-ul-Haq, who was your loyal Cold War ally. He certainly helped the US fight the Soviets.

Glenn Carle: Well, all the Pakistanis were.

Atul Singh: Yeah, all the Pakistanis then were. But at the same time, he diverted some money and he came up with Operation Tupac: Bleed India through a thousand cuts. Because he realized, okay, if we go for a head-on military conflict, weā€™ll probably lose. But India is diverse. India has, to use V. S. Naipaulā€™s , ā€œa million mutinies now,ā€ and we can aid and abet some of them.

And initially, he encouraged terrorism in Punjab. Initially, the playbook was Punjab. And the Sikh insurgency erupted in the ā€˜80s. If you remember the ā€˜80s, the Indian Army stormed the Golden Temple because you had the likes of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale ensconced there. Now, bit by bit, the Sikh insurgency died ā€” much effort by the Indian state. And of course, the Sikhs are pretty well integrated in India. And Manmohan Singh was Prime Minister of India for ten years. A Sikh gentleman was Prime Minister of India. So the Sikhs realized they had a lot more to gain within India than outside it. And the only Sikhs who want independence are the Sikhs in Khalistan because they fled India at that time and carry the same ideas as of 40 years ago.

But starting in 1989, Pakistan got the chance to use the same playbook in Kashmir, and that has proved to be far more potent. Partly because in 1987, Rajiv Gandhi, the son of Indira Gandhi and the grandson of Jawaharlal Nehru, in his wisdom, decided that he would rig the election. Once he rigged the election in 1987 because there was fear that separatists would win, there was no going back. People lost faith in the democratic process. It erupted and the insurgency erupted.

Weā€™ve had elections. Weā€™ve had periods of relative peace. And since this government has been in power, there has been a little bit more peace, even though for the last few years there was violence in the Jammu region. But India, by clamping down, by having a lot of security forces, by encouraging tourism, by building infrastructure, by giving out massive subsidies, has managed to keep the peace.

But for Pakistan, they cannot counter India by offering economic sweetness. They are a much smaller economy. Theyā€™ve gone to the International Monetary Fund 17 times already. Theyā€™re a basket case. And therefore, they have to use terrorism, and they have been paranoid about the lack of strategic depth. Thatā€™s why they also encouraged the Taliban. And the Taliban is in power in Kabul. Thatā€™s another matter, that there is still fighting over the Durand Line. Pakistan accepts it; Afghanistan doesnā€™t.

Glenn Carle: Thatā€™s the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Okay, so we mentioned the bare sketch of the details of whatā€™s happened on April 22 of this year and since. Weā€™ve noted that it is the latest terrorist incident concerning Kashmir of many. So why then is this being presented by many pundits and the media as somehow qualitatively different and seemingly more alarming, more dangerous, than previous episodes ā€” one. And two, other than pride, what makes this issue seemingly existential for Pakistan and India?

Atul Singh: I think, objectively, perhaps it is not as terrible as 1990. In 1990, there was complete ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits from the Kashmir Valley. They were told basically to go, otherwise theyā€™d be killed and their women would be raped ā€” and they fled en masse. So is this bigger than that? No. There have been some other incidents you could argue that were far more alarming.

The reason why India perceives this as a big incident is simple. For the last few years, the Narendra Modi government has claimed that Kashmir is peaceful. They have claimed that theyā€™ve replaced terrorism by tourism. They have sought to bring in investment from the Gulf into Kashmir. So the attack completely destroys their credibility on national security, because Kashmir is not peaceful. The tourists who went there, who were enjoying their time in the valley, were killed in cold blood. They were killed in an October 7-like attack, which was intended to strike terror, kill tourists and kill tourism ā€” a very clear aim.

And this will now send, and already has sent, a chill of fear. How many people are going to go travel to Kashmir? I had American friends who were planning on going skiing this winter to Kashmir. Iā€™m sure they are not planning their trips now. They are probably planning to go skiing elsewhere. So this will hit the Kashmir economy. And this is huge, because that was the play the Bharatiya Janata Party government led by Narendra Modi was making to make Kashmir an integral part of the economy.

Glenn Carle: One can argue that one terrorist attack in six years of a policy, on one side of the ledger, and on the other side of the ledger, an increase in millions ā€” I think it was 26 million or so, I heard something like that ā€” of tourists who have gone to the region since the change in policy. It would be unfortunate were one incident able to undo six years of seeming objective success.

Atul Singh: Yeah, I think thatā€™s fair. That is absolutely true, and thatā€™s unfortunate. But as you know, people are emotional creatures. People are prisoners of perception. So yes, although it has been one incident ā€” but the fact that so many people were killed in cold blood, security forces took such a long time to arrive there ā€” and this was clearly intended for anyone non-Muslim. Although one Muslim local pony operator did die trying to save the tourists.

This sends a chill down everyoneā€™s spine. A Christian gentleman said, ā€œLook, Iā€™m Christian,ā€ and they said, reportedly, ā€œTake that for Palestine.ā€ The poor chap, I mean, they probably didnā€™t read their Palestinian history. Hanan Ashrawi, the Palestinian spokeswoman for the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) was Christian. So was Edward Said, another champion of Palestinian rights.

So what this has conveyed is that if youā€™re non-Muslim, you could be targeted, and no one really wants to die.

So how does the state react? That was the question you posed to me. And the answer is: with difficulty. Because what do you do with a problem like Pakistan? And youā€™ve had the same problem in the US. India has had the same problem for longer. You have a regime that has fundamentally failed its people. The secular elites of Pakistan have fled the country. They donā€™t even live in the country. They live in England, they live in Canada, they live in Dubai of late, and of course, they also live in the US.

So increasingly, the state is utterly corrupt, irredeemably corrupt. So it cannot provide schools, it cannot provide hospitals, it cannot provide roads, it cannot provide clean drinking water. It has a feudal society where the likes of Bilawal Bhutto, the current foreign minister, live in absolute splendor, whilst his serfs live in squalor. So this feudal society, wherein the elites run a parasitic, exploitative, extractive state, has a situation where the only people delivering services are the Muslim fundamentalists, quite often. The madrasas are where young children do get a free education. And unfortunately, there they are also fed the diet of ā€œkill all the kafirsā€ ā€” or the kuffars, if you want to use the Arabic version. ā€œKafirā€ is what is used in South Asia, where they are taught thatā€”

Glenn Carle: Which means non-believers.

Atul Singh: Which means non-believers ā€” where they are taught that one day Islam will return to its glory, and if they are willing to fight for jihad, then thereā€™ll be rivers of milk and honey.

And so there is this extraordinary vortex going on in Pakistan, wherein the society is increasingly becoming more and more radicalized. The political class is completely discredited. The Pakistani army has locked up its most popular political leaders since Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Theyā€™ve propped up old, corrupt dynasties. So the state has to somehow stay united using a bogeyman, and India is the bogeyman. And if you have to take on India, then you have to use terror, because you canā€™t fight India militarily.

Glenn Carle: Now, could not one say that part of the reason this incident seems to have more resonance, to be more dangerous and to have caused more alarm, is that it apparently ā€” whether in fact or not, I donā€™t know, but perception is reality in many instances ā€” has given the lie, as it were, to Narendra Modiā€™s speech, nationalist policy, broadly speaking, and also to the policy of ā€” Iā€™m sure thereā€™s a term used ā€” of having legally absorbed Kashmir. And evidence of part of its failure could be that apparently the residents are quite disaffected with the martial law imposed and having less say than ever in their own destinies.

Atul Singh: Thereā€™s no longer martial law now. You do have a local Chief Minister. Weā€™ve had elections, too. But yes, certainly a part of Narendra Modiā€™s policy stands discredited. Certainly. Letā€™s look at the ledger and see where his government has done well and where theyā€™ve fallen short.

Where have they done well? Number one: building infrastructure. Done superbly well. Youā€™ve gone to India, youā€™ve seen that yourself. Number two: They have stimulated economic activity in Kashmir Valley. Tourism is up, other economic activity is up, export of handicrafts is up. So, all jolly good there.

Number three: jobs. Kashmir Valley has always had an unemployment problem, which is why a lot of young people have taken to terrorism or insurgency in the past. So there are more jobs for young people. So three positives.

And thatā€™s where removing Article 370 in 2019 perhaps was a good thing, because one argument which retired intelligence chiefs make ā€” that, ā€œOh, we shouldnā€™t have removed Article 370, thatā€™s what gave them special status,ā€ ā€” but then the challenge with that is, then you are signaling to everyone itā€™s a special case. So there are arguments equally strong, if not stronger, against Dulatā€™s arguments.

And by the way, one opposition leader, Robert Vadra ā€” the brother-in-law of Rahul Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehruā€™s great-grandson ā€” heā€™s no relation to Mahatma Gandhi. I get asked many times abroad that, ā€œOh, theyā€™re Gandhiā€™s kids?ā€ I said, ā€œNo, no, no, the Mahatma died.ā€ Or Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the wily lawyer, died. He was not that wily, after all, without leaving a dynasty in power. It was Jawaharlal Nehru, the Kashmiri Brahmin, ironically, who left Kashmir a mess but managed to create a dynasty that is still powerful today.

And Robert Vadra said that this attack occurred because India removed 370, which was a ridiculously idiotic statement. There were more terrorist attacks before 370. So to blame this attack on the removal of the pre-2019 Article 370 giving special status is childish.

Bureaucratic failures and rising complacency

Letā€™s talk about where Modiā€™s nationalist policies have failed. Number one: too many of the top personnel he appointed in Kashmir ā€” and this particularly pertains to the Lieutenant Governor and the Chief Secretary ā€” were people who didnā€™t know Kashmir. They had no idea whatsoever. They were flocked in because they were sycophants. They were brought in because they were supposedly efficient. But they didnā€™t understand the state, they didnā€™t speak the local language, they didnā€™t understand the local customs. They donā€™t eat ā€” properly, at least ā€” with the locals. And they therefore ran an administration that seemed out of touch. And there have been BJP leaders in Jammu whoā€™ve complained about the Lieutenant Governor and complained about so many bureaucrats ā€” the Indian Administrative Service officers and the Indian Police Service officers at the top in the state. So thatā€™s number one. That is a failure. If you run something through centralized rule, at least send competent people in there.

Number two: Yes, they were very heavy-handed. And they thought that if they clamped down and there were jobs, that would be enough. So there was no feedback loop to the top. So there was a lack of democratic feedback.

That is true all across India, because there has been a concentration of power in the Prime Ministerā€™s Office. The Prime Ministerā€™s Office controls everything. Even ministers of the Bharatiya Janata Party have no say most of the time, it is Indian Administrative Service officers ā€” IAS officers, descendants of the colonial Indian Civil Service ā€” that run everything from the PMO, from the Prime Ministerā€™s Office.

Glenn Carle: Now, these failings you touch upon ā€” which, letā€™s accept thatā€™s an accurate characterization of them ā€” even if it is accurate, it strikes me as a stretch for Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed to justify its attack.

Atul Singh: They would have done the attack anyway.

Glenn Carle: Or to be instigated because of bureaucratic inefficiency? Are those frustrations that the Indians have created even relevant to the issue?

Atul Singh: No, no, no. But they are relevant to the issue of increased attacks in Jammu and increased attacks ā€” and this attack ā€” in Kashmir. Because where were the security forces? Why were they not in the valley where so many tourists were? Why did they take so long to get there, knowing fully well that this is a delicate situation?

Too many security forces drank their own Kool-Aid. They thought everything was hunky-dory. And they didnā€™t bother. And there were warning signs.

Glenn Carle: Were there?

Atul Singh: There were a number of warning signs. Three years ago, a young captain told me that, ā€œSir, we are asleep on the wheel. The top people are not paying attention. We have no human intelligence at all. We are relying completely on technical intelligence,ā€ which is basically tapping phones and yada ya. And he was saying that we are losing boys regularly on the front. In fact, Captain Shubham Gupta of 9 Para Commandos ā€” I know his name because heā€™s a friend of a younger friend ā€” he died. And so many other officers and men died.

So violence had been creeping up. But because the top bureaucrats were sitting with their fat asses in their big bungalows, they didnā€™t pay heed to them. After all, the people dying were soldiers and young captains. This certainly throws egg on Modiā€™s face, and it also throws egg on his bombastic nationalist declarations. Because the Home Minister, Amit Shah, gave a speech that, ā€œWe will die for Aksai Chin.ā€ Now that was an irresponsible speech in Parliament, because the Chinese thought that, ā€œHang on a minute, they want war with us,ā€ and may have led to Chinese bullying of our troops on the border. Similarly, these grandiose declarations that we will do whatever it takes, have locked the BJP into responding, because they have to be seen to be strong.

And a very important point I want to make is that they failed the economy. They have brought in military reforms, we can discuss that another timeā€”

Glenn Carle: You said the economy was doing much better.

Atul Singh: They have failed broadly on the national economy. The Kashmir economy is doing much better, but the national economy has an unemployment problem. They have brought back socialism ā€” what I call Sanatan socialism. We canā€™t go into that ā€” thatā€™s another episode. But now, they have to be seen as strong on national security.

And remember, in the last election, they did not get a full majority. They fell short. They got 240, so they needed another, say, 20 to 32 seats. So they are in a coalition government.

Escalation and the politics of war

Glenn Carle: You touch upon a point in which I have some direct personal experience. Whatever the failings of the bureaucrats or the leaders at whatever level, the most significant, the greatest challenge, to any security officer or organization is complacency and routine. And one cannot avoid it.

I attended the training school for Marine Corps guards, the security contingents for American embassies. And the first lesson they tried to impart was that an individual Marine, say, will be at a certain post, and for 23 hours, 59 minutes, 59 seconds of every day, absolutely nothing will happen. Nothing ever happens. Everything is always benign and routine ā€” until the one instant when it isnā€™t.

But if one sees for seven months a continuous routine of nothing, it is almost impossible to remain at the level of alertness that one must maintain to detect and to stop a terrorist attack. Whether itā€™s the level of just the perimeter defense or a larger perception and awareness of planning and execution of a terrorist operation. So itā€™s a tall order to expect the authorities to be everywhere at all times and at all times, everywhere alert. But thatā€™s the job. Iā€™m not saying that they mustnā€™t be held accountable. But that is the job.

But what you were saying raises the question to me of: Okay, we have these underlying structural problems that have not been resolved, that have led to terrorism from the Pakistani side. There are the various changes that have occurred in the last five years or a year or so in Kashmir. But why an attack now?

Perhaps thereā€™s no answer to this, because at some point, some organization will be ready to conduct an operation and will do it on a date thatā€™s certain. But is there any understanding for why this would have occurred now?

Atul Singh: Iā€™m operating from first principles, because I know as much as you. Iā€™m reading the press. Yes, maybe Iā€™m talking to a few more people in India, but really, Iā€™m not there. And Iā€™m not privy to intelligence on Pakistan.

But letā€™s look at Asim Munir, the current Chief of Army Staff of Pakistan. He gave a particularly aggressive speech just a few days before the attack. His father was an imam. He went to a madrasa. Heā€™s not your typical Scotch-drinking general Parvez Musharraf-type leader. Heā€™s more akin to General Zia-ul-Haq, really.

So youā€™re fundamentally religious. You believe in the idea of Pakistan. Your institution, the Pakistan Army, is losing credibility. Youā€™re under a lot of pressure. How is it that you unify people behind your institution after youā€™ve rigged an election?

And of course, once you have conflict, then you also hit ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s claim that itā€™s now rivaling China and it has nothing to do with Pakistan. So this attack now actually plays into both Pakistanā€™s and Chinaā€™s interests. Iā€™m not saying they are plotting this together. But for the Chinese, it is great that there are lots of strikes on Indian territory by Pakistanis all across the international border and the Line of Control. This means that if you were an American company ā€” letā€™s say Apple ā€” youā€™d think twice about creating big factories anywhere close to that border, or maybe even in the country.

So, why now? I think it is fundamentally to do with the internal politics of Pakistan. I have a very good Israeli friend who said, ā€œLook, Bibi has got to go into Gaza because of internal politics.ā€ He has an election coming up. He wants to claim victory and then win the election. He has to keep the support of Smotrich and Ben Gvir and all the crazies in the cabinet, so he has to act tough. And in fact, the reserves are stretched. We donā€™t have reserves. Itā€™s clear we need a more intelligent, targeted policy. Itā€™s clear that the top leadership disagrees. The Shin Bet chief is gone, who by all accounts was a very impressive chap. And so we are where we are because of domestic politics. And I think in both India and Pakistan, domestic politics play a key role.

Asim Munir needs more support within Pakistan for himself and for the Pakistan Army. And Narendra Modi has to be seen as having a 56-inch chest, because thatā€™s what heā€™s proclaimed that he has. I mean, he may not have a 56-inch chest. He may have a 56-inch paunch, but that is immaterial. His credibility in Indian politics now rests completely on being strong on national security. Heā€™s failed on the economy. Heā€™s failed in any reforms. Heā€™s improved welfare distribution, for sure. Heā€™s built infrastructure, for sure. But the oppressive and extractive and really arbitrary taxation has destroyed the animal spirits of the Indian economy. And 4,300 millionaires left India and moved elsewhere. So there are no jobs and things are tough.

Glenn Carle: So itā€™s a foreign solution to a domestic problem.

A fragile peace and dark horizon

Atul Singh: Exactly. And then his claim on national security is threatened, so he had to act strong. But for all the speeches, India certainly does not want war, because India is fundamentally, believe it or not, not an aggressive country.

In 1999, they did not cross the Line of Control, partly thanks to US pressure. In my view, they should have crossed the Line of Control, because I lost too many of my friends charging up hills. We should have starved them out. That was a more efficient way to proceed militarily. But India has always wanted to be seen as goody two-shoes and play by international rules.

Glenn Carle: So in crises of this sort, there is a natural path that diplomats ā€” and I would argue, responsible leaders ā€” generally will follow. An incident will occur that demands a response because thereā€™s domestic anger about the killed innocents, infringements on sovereignty, rise in fear and so on. Okay, so a terrorist attack occurred. The response is a conventional military strike of a limited nature to make the point that you canā€™t do things with impunity. If you continue, the costs will increase. We have affirmed our sovereignty. We have paid you back a little bit, and so far as we are concerned, enough. Just donā€™t carry on in the future.

That explicitly ā€” they used different words ā€” was ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s approach. They were very careful to say, ā€œWe were only striking this kind of site, not the Pakistani government or military,ā€ et cetera, et cetera.

The next step in this diplomatic dance is what Pakistan has just done. The state says, ā€œOh my goodness, we were attacked conventionally. The population is in turmoil or uproar that this is unfair, the government is weak, youā€™re feckless. What are you doing?ā€ So they feel constrained to beat their breasts and to do something.

Now, the wise approach, generally speaking, if one wishes to avoid endless escalation and further disasters, is to take a recent page out of Iranā€™s playbook, which is when they were in a tiff with the United States in Syria, in Iraq in the last couple of years, and then also with Israel.

The Iranians said, ā€œThis is unacceptable. We are going to defend our interests. You will pay for this.ā€ And they said, ā€œWeā€™re going to attack.ā€ And almost literally they said, ā€œWeā€™ll attack this place at this time. And you better watch out, because weā€™re going to attack this place at this time.ā€ And then, backchannel, they informed the Americans and the Israelis essentially of the same thing. And then they launched their missiles at a place where the Americans and Israelis had had time to take shelter. Thus, the point was made. Lives were not lost on the other side. And everyone could claim that they had defended their honor.

Itā€™s not clear to me if Pakistan has done that this time. But that raises the questionā€”

Atul Singh: They went all out. They conducted drone strikes against military targets and, as per rumor, even against the Golden Temple, which was intercepted.

Glenn Carle: The reason is weak compared to emotion and our psychological need to beat our breasts and use our testosterone in international relations. And thatā€™s not a joke.

But what possible benefits could Pakistan derive from an escalation of this current crisis? And the same question is true for India. What possible advantage could India obtain, since a generalized war, even if victorious, would lead to incomprehensibly complex and overwhelmingly burdensome problems for even the victor?

So is this, in your view, about to spin out of rational control? Is that what is happening how Iā€™ve described it? And then the large question, which we always all ask and which is the hardest to answer, is: What is likely to happen next?

Atul Singh: So far, both countries are climbing up the escalation ladder. India has struck Lahore, Karachi and Rawalpindi ā€” I think perhaps Peshawar, too. So India has proven the point that it can strike as well. Itā€™s a game two can play. And as you know from the BBC, they have hit air defense sites.

So I think we are engaged in a tit for tat. There is a possibility that sense will prevail, the parties may sit down separately and smoke the peace pipe and say, ā€œOkay, weā€™ve had enough.ā€ There is a possibility that this escalation might persist for a bit.

For Pakistan, I think it is domestic politics. The leaders ā€” especially Asim Munir and all the feckless, corrupt dynasties ā€” Shehbaz Sharif and Bilawal Bhutto ā€” get to be patriots. Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. (Laughs)

And on the Indian side, Narendra Modi would hope that it boosts his flag and popularity. And the escalation ladder, as of now, will continue.

In the long run, however, I am a pessimist. I think in the long run, religion is a deep fault line in India. There are two views of Islam in India, or many views. One is that Islam in India was a benevolent force. It came through the Sufis, it brought in a syncretic culture. And the subcontinental form of Islam is completely different to the Middle Eastern form of Islam. Thereā€™s an element of truth there, as with all myths, as with all narratives. And India has constantly played that narrative.

And the Pakistani view is that, no, Islam is the fault line. From 1192, Muslims ruled India, and they are the rightful rulers of India. And perhaps weā€™ll have a Dar al-Islam instead of Dar al-Harb again.

And that dividing line still persists. And that dividing line, if Pakistan were to become more radical and India were to become more nationalist over time, that would lead eventually to nuclear war. I donā€™t see any way out.

And I see the conflict between these two countries as their populations rise. Remember, since 1960 ā€” which is the Indus Waters Treaty, we havenā€™t even discussed that ā€” but the Indus Waters Treaty has held so far. Itā€™s suspended now. Pakistanā€™s population has grown fivefold. ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s population has grown threefold. There are a lot of people. There are few resources. So tensions will persist.

Glenn Carle: So itā€™s an age-old issue. The structural problems are unchanged. The contemporaneous policies seem to have polarized or made even more brittle the situation.

Atul Singh: Yeah. I mean, eventually. I donā€™t see Pakistan as surviving as one state. Eventually, it will fragment. Because if the raison dā€™ĆŖtre of the state is Islam, and the only thing holding it together is anti-India, and the state is failing to provide basic services, at some point ā€” to William Butler Yeats ā€” ā€œThings fall apart; the centre cannot hold.ā€

Glenn Carle: So thatā€™s a relatively dark characterization and prognosis. (Atul laughs)

Atul Singh: In the long run. I mean, imagine: An independent Punjab wouldnā€™t have to subsidize everyone else. Balochistan would be able to have trading relations with everyone.

Glenn Carle: Well, I find it hard to imagine that, on both sides of the Line of Control, that for this specific crisis, cooler heads will not ultimately prevail. I am inclined to think that both sides have already made their point, but it is very easy for passion to overwhelm reason.

And on those, as usual, very happy notes ā€” we should talk about baseball or ice hockey, something that there might be good news in at some point ā€” I think we will leave you there. I hope thatā€”

Atul Singh: Or football. Soccer. The Champions League Final between Inter Milan and Paris Saint-Germain, your adopted country.

Glenn Carle: Yes, we can take a stab at that for us. Weā€™ll have to leave you, I hope not too depressed, but perhaps hopeful that understanding brings the increased possibility of resolution. And Iā€™m Glenn Carle, signing off.

Atul Singh: Bye for now.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/podcast are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Making Sense of the Latest Indiaā€“Pakistan Tensions appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Recent events illustrate the rising tensions of the new Cold War in the Pacific. From June to September of this year, the Chinese and Russian militaries conducted joint maneuvers that ranged from live-fire in the South China Sea to air patrols circling Japan and even US airspace in . To respond to what Moscow ā€œrising geopolitical tension around the world,ā€ such actions culminated last month in a joint Chineseā€“Russian that mobilized 400 ships, 120 aircraft and 90,000 troops in a vast arc from the Baltic Sea across the Arctic to the northern Pacific Ocean. While kicking off such monumental maneuvers with China, Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the US of ā€œtrying to maintain its global military and political dominance at any costā€ by ā€œincreasing [its] military presenceā€¦ in the Asia-Pacific region.ā€

ā€œChina is not a future threat,ā€ US Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall in September. ā€œChina is a threat today.ā€ Over the past 15 years, Beijingā€™s ability to project power in the Western Pacific, he claimed, had risen to alarming levels. He said the likelihood of war was ā€œincreasingā€ and, he predicted, it will only ā€œcontinue to do so.ā€ An anonymous senior Pentagon official that China ā€œcontinues to be the only U.S. competitor with the intent andā€¦ the capability to overturn the rules-based infrastructure that has kept peace in the Indo-Pacific since the end of the Second World War.ā€

Indeed, regional tensions in the Pacific have profound global implications. For the past 80 years, an island chain of military bastions running from Japan to Australia has served as a crucial fulcrum for US global power. To ensure that it will be able to continue to anchor its ā€œdefenseā€ on that strategic shoal, Washington has recently added new overlapping alliances while encouraging a massive militarization of the Indoā€“Pacific region. Though bristling with armaments and seemingly strong, this ad hoc Western coalition may yet prove, like NATO in Europe, vulnerable to sudden setbacks from rising partisan pressures, both in the US and among its allies.

Building a Pacific bastion

For well over a century, the US has struggled to secure its vulnerable western frontier from Pacific threats. During the early decades of the 20th century, Washington maneuvered against a rising Japanese presence in the region. These actions produced geopolitical tensions that led to Tokyoā€™s attack on the US naval bastion at Pearl Harbor that began World War II in the Pacific. After fighting for four years and suffering nearly 300,000 casualties, the US defeated Japan and won unchallenged control of the entire region.

Aware that the advent of the long-range bomber and the future possibility of atomic warfare had rendered the historic concept of coastal defense irrelevant, in the post-war years Washington extended its North American ā€œdefensesā€ deep into the Western Pacific. Starting with the expropriation of 100 Japanese military bases, the US built its initial postwar Pacific naval bastions at Okinawa and, thanks to a 1947 agreement, at Subic Bay in the Philippines. As the Cold War engulfed Asia in 1950 with the beginning of the Korean conflict, the US extended those bases for 5,000 miles along the entire Pacific littoral through mutual-defense agreements with five Asiaā€“Pacific allies: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and Australia.

For the next 40 years to the very end of the Cold War, the Pacific littoral remained the geopolitical fulcrum of US global power, allowing it to defend North America and dominate Eurasia. In many ways, the US geopolitical position astride the axial ends of Eurasia would prove the key to its ultimate victory in the Cold War.

After the Cold War

Once the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and the Cold War ended, Washington cashed in its peace dividend, weakening that once-strong island chain. Between 1998 and 2014, the US Navy from 333 ships to 271. That 20% reduction, combined with a shift to long-term deployments in the Middle East, degraded the Navyā€™s position in the Pacific. Even so, for the 20 years following the Cold War, the US would enjoy what the Pentagon ā€œuncontested or dominant superiority in every operating domain. We could generally deploy our forces when we wanted, assemble them where we wanted, operate how we wanted.ā€

After the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US, Washington turned from heavy-metal strategic forces to mobile infantry readily deployed for counterterror operations against lightly armed guerrillas. After a decade of fighting misbegotten wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington was stunned when a rising China began to turn its economic gains into a serious bid for global power. As its opening gambit, Beijing started in the South China Sea, where oil and natural gas deposits are . It also began expanding its navy, an unexpected challenge that the once-all-powerful US Pacific command was remarkably ill-prepared to meet.

In response, in 2011, President Barack Obama a strategic ā€œpivot to Asiaā€ before the Australian parliament and began rebuilding the US military position on the Pacific littoral. After withdrawing some forces from Iraq in 2012 and refusing to commit significant numbers of troops for regime change in Syria, the Obama White House a battalion of Marines to Darwin in northern Australia in 2014. In quick succession, Washington gained access to five near the South China Sea and a new South Korean naval base at on the Yellow Sea. According to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, to operate those installations, the Pentagon to ā€œforward base 60 percent of our naval assets in the Pacific by 2020.ā€ Nonetheless, the unending insurgency in Iraq continued to slow the pace of that strategic pivot to the Pacific.

Despite such setbacks, senior diplomatic and military officials, working under three different administrations, launched a long-term effort to slowly rebuild the US military posture in the Asiaā€“Pacific region. After ā€œa return to great power competitionā€ in 2016, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson that Chinaā€™s ā€œgrowing and modernized fleetā€ was ā€œshrinkingā€ the traditional US advantage in the region. ā€œThe competition is on,ā€ the admiral warned, adding, ā€œWe must shake off any vestiges of comfort or complacency.ā€

Responding to such pressure, the administration of President Donald Trump added the construction of 46 new ships to the Pentagon , which was to raise the total fleet to 326 vessels by 2023. Support ships aside, when it came to an actual ā€œfighting force,ā€ by 2024 China had the worldā€™s with 234 ā€œwarships.ā€ The US deployed only 219, with Chinese combat capacity, according to US Naval Intelligence, ā€œincreasingly of comparable quality to U.S. ships.ā€

Paralleling the military build-up, the State Department reinforced the US position on the Pacific littoral by negotiating three relatively new diplomatic agreements with Asiaā€“Pacific allies Australia, Britain, India and the Philippines. Though those ententes added some depth and resilience to the US posture, the truth is that this Pacific network may ultimately prove more susceptible to political rupture than a formal multilateral alliance like NATO.

Military cooperation with the Philippines

After nearly a century as close allies through decades of colonial rule, two world wars and the Cold War, US relations with the Philippines suffered a severe setback in 1991. That countryā€™s senate refused to renew a long-term military bases agreement, forcing the US 7th Fleet out of its massive naval base at Subic Bay.

After just three years, however, China occupied some shoals also claimed by the Philippines in the South China Sea during a raging typhoon. Within a decade, the Chinese had started transforming them into a network of military bases, while pressing their claims to most of the rest of the South China Sea. Manilaā€™s only response was to a rusting World War II naval vessel on Ayungin shoal in the Spratly Islands, where Filipino soldiers had to fish for their supper. With its external defense in tatters, in April 2014 the Philippines an Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with Washington. This allowed the US military quasi-permanent facilities at five Filipino bases, including two on the shores of the South China Sea.

Although Manila won a from the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague that Beijingā€™s claims to the South China Sea were ā€œ,ā€ China dismissed that decision and continued to build its bases there. And when Rodrigo Duterte became president of the Philippines in 2016, he revealed a new policy that included a ā€œseparationā€ from the US and a toward China. That country rewarded the policy with promises of massive developmental aid. By 2018, however, Chinaā€™s army was anti-aircraft missiles, mobile missile launchers and military radar on five artificial ā€œislandsā€ in the Spratly archipelago that it had built from sand its dredgers sucked from the seabed.

Once Duterte left office, as Chinaā€™s Coast Guard harassed Filipino fishermen and blasted Philippine naval vessels with water cannons in their own territory, Manila once again started calling on Washington for help. Soon, US Navy vessels were conducting ā€œfreedom of navigationā€ patrols in Philippine waters and the two nations had staged their biggest ever. In the April 2024 edition of that exercise, the US deployed its mobile Typhon Mid-Range capable of hitting Chinaā€™s coast, sparking a bitter from Beijing that such weaponry ā€œintensifies geopolitical confrontation.ā€

Manila has matched its new commitment to the US alliance with an unprecedented rearmament program of its own. Just last spring, it signed a $400 million deal with Tokyo to five new Coast Guard cutters, started receiving Brahmos from India under a $375 million contract and continued a billion-dollar deal with South Koreaā€™s Hyundai Heavy Industries that will produce ten new naval vessels. After the government a $35 billion military modernization plan, Manila has been negotiating with Korean to procure modern jet fighters. This is a far cry from a decade earlier when it had no operational .

Showing the scope of the countryā€™s reintegration into the Western alliance, just last month Manila hosted joint freedom of navigation in the South China Sea with ships from five allied nations: Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines and the US.

Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and the AUKUS alliance

While the Philippine Defense Agreement renewed US relations with an old Pacific ally, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue involving Australia, India, Japan and the US, first launched in 2007, has now extended US military power into the Indian Ocean. At the 2017 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit in Manila, four conservative national leaders led by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Trump decided to the ā€œQuadā€ entente (after a decade-long hiatus while Australiaā€™s Labour Party governments cozied up to China).

Just last month, President Joe Biden hosted a ā€œā€ where the four leaders agreed to expand joint air operations. In a hot-mike moment, Biden bluntly : ā€œChina continues to behave aggressively, testing us all across the region. It is true in the South China Sea, the East China Sea, South Asia, and the Taiwan Straits.ā€ Chinaā€™s Foreign Ministry : ā€œThe U.S. is lying through its teethā€ and needs to ā€œget rid of its obsession with perpetuating its supremacy and containing China.ā€

Since 2020, however, the Quad has made the annual Malabar in India into an elaborate four-power drill in which aircraft carrier battle groups maneuver in waters ranging from the Arabian Sea to the East China Sea. To contest ā€œChinaā€™s growing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region,ā€ India that the latest exercise this October would feature live-fire maneuvers in the Bay of Bengal, led by its flagship aircraft carrier and a complement of MiG-29K all-weather jet fighters. Clearly, as Modi it, the Quad is ā€œhere to stay.ā€

While the Trump administration revived the Quad, the Biden White House has promoted a complementary and controversial AUKUS defense compact between Australia, the United Kingdom and the US (part of what Michael Klare has called the ā€œā€ of US foreign and military policy). After months of secret negotiations, their leaders that agreement in September 2021 as a way to fulfill ā€œa shared ambition to support Australia in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy.ā€

Such a goal sparked howls of diplomatic protests. Angry over the sudden loss of a $90 billion contract to supply 12 French submarines to Australia, France the decision ā€œa stab in the backā€ and immediately its ambassadors from both Canberra and Washington. With equal speed, Chinaā€™s Foreign Ministry the new alliance for ā€œseverely damaging regional peaceā€¦ and intensifying the arms race.ā€ In a pointed remark, Beijingā€™s official Global Times newspaper said Australia had now ā€œturned itself into an adversary of China.ā€

To achieve extraordinary prosperity, thanks in significant part to its iron ore and other exports to China, Australia had exited the Quad entente for nearly a decade. Through this single defense decision, Australia has allied itself firmly with the US. It will to British submarine designs and top-secret US nuclear propulsion, joining the elite ranks of just six powers with such complex technology.

Australia will spend a monumental to build eight nuclear submarines at its Adelaide shipyards over a decade. Additionally, it will host four US Virginia-class nuclear subs at a naval base in Western Australia and buy as many as five of those stealthy submarines from the US in the early 2030s. Under the tripartite alliance with the US and Britain, Canberra will also face additional costs for the joint development of undersea drones, hypersonic missiles and quantum sensing. Through that stealthy arms deal, Washington has seemingly won a major geopolitical and military ally in any future conflict with China.

Stand-off along the Pacific littoral

Just as Russiaā€™s aggression in Ukraine strengthened the NATO alliance, so Chinaā€™s challenge in the fossil-fuel-rich South China Sea and elsewhere has helped the US rebuild its island bastions along the Pacific littoral. Through a sedulous courtship under three successive administrations, Washington has won back two wayward allies: Australia and the Philippines. They are once again anchors for an island chain that remains the geopolitical fulcrum for US global power in the Pacific.

Still, with more than 200 times the ship-building capacity of the US, Chinaā€™s in warships will almost certainly continue to grow. In compensating for such a future deficit, the USā€™s four active allies along the Pacific littoral will likely play a critical role. (Japanā€™s navy has more than 50 warships and South Koreaā€™s 30 more.)

Despite such renewed strength in what is distinctly becoming a new cold war, the USā€™s Asiaā€“Pacific alliances face both immediate challenges and a fraught future. Beijing is already putting relentless pressure on Taiwanā€™s sovereignty, breaching that islandā€™s airspace and crossing the median line in the Taiwan Straits monthly. If Beijing turns those breaches into a crippling embargo of Taiwan, the US Navy will face a hard choice between losing a carrier or two in a confrontation with China or backing off. Either way, the loss of Taiwan would sever the USā€™s island chain in the Pacific littoral, pushing it back to a ā€œsecond island chainā€ in the mid-Pacific.

As for that fraught future, the maintenance of such alliances requires a kind of national political will that is by no means assured in an age of populist nationalism. In the Philippines, the anti-US nationalism that Duterte personified retains its appeal and may well be adopted by some future leader. More immediately in Australia, the current has already faced strong dissent from members blasting the AUKUS entente as a dangerous transgression of their countryā€™s sovereignty. And in the US, Republican populism, whether Trumpā€™s or that of a future leader like J.D. Vance could curtail cooperation with such Asiaā€“Pacific allies, simply walk away from a costly conflict over Taiwan or deal directly with China in a way that would undercut that web of hard-won alliances.

And that, of course, might be the good news given the possibility that growing Chinese aggressiveness in the region and a US urge to strengthen a military alliance ominously encircling that country could threaten to turn the latest Cold War ever hotter. This would transform the Pacific into a genuine powder keg and could lead to a war that would, in our present world, be almost unimaginably destructive.

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Powder Keg in the Pacific appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

On July 9, 2024, Modi embraced Russian President Vladimir Putin, to the of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In the following , Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar defended the prime minister, , ā€œIn our part of the world, when people meet people, they are given to embracing each other. It may not be part of your culture, but I assure you, itā€™s part of ours.ā€ This statement encapsulates the cultural divide that Modiā€™s hugs often bridge and the misunderstandings they sometimes generate.

Historical embracing in India and beyond

In India, embracing, or Aalingan, is deeply rooted in cultural and spiritual traditions. Itā€™s not merely a greeting but a profound expression of trust, respect and connection that transcends verbal communication. This practice finds its origins in ancient Indian epics and spiritual texts.

In the , one of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s most revered epics, the embrace between the gods Lord Rama and Hanuman symbolizes not just friendship, but a deep, spiritual bond. Similarly, in the epic , the god Krishnaā€™s embraces with his friends and devotees are portrayed as acts of divine love, emphasizing the spiritual significance of physical connection.

The concept of Aalingan extends beyond mythology into everyday Indian life. It is a common form of greeting in many communities, especially among family members and close friends. Itā€™s seen as a way to express affection, offer comfort and strengthen bonds between individuals.

While Modiā€™s hugs are rooted in Indian tradition, the act of embracing as a form of greeting or expression of kindness is not unique to India. Throughout history and across various cultures, this action has played significant roles in social and diplomatic interactions.

In ancient Greece, the concept of referred to a greeting that often included an embrace. The Greeks, known for their emphasis on personal relationships and philosophical discourse, understood the power of physical connection in fostering mutual understanding. In Greek literature, this contact often signifies an emotional reunion or reconciliation between former enemies. Think of the between the disguised Odysseus and his wife Penelope at the end of Odyssey. At first, Penelope does not believe Odysseus when he reveals his identity. Their hug signifies both reunion and the restoration of trust.

The Romans, too, recognized the importance of physical gestures in both personal and diplomatic contexts. The Latin amplexus (ā€œembraceā€) and complexus (ā€œentwiningā€) were used to describe close physical contact that conveyed sincerity and built trust. In ancient Rome, the embrace signified brotherhood and common purpose. The celebrated Portrait of the Four Tetrarchs, depicting the four Roman co-emperors in a mutual embrace, amply demonstrates this custom.

Portrait of the Four Tetrarchs, Venice, Italy.

In the Middle Ages, the ā€œkiss of peace,ā€ or , was a common greeting among European nobility and clergy, often accompanied by an embrace. This practice, rooted in early Christian traditions, was seen as a way to express unity and reconciliation within the community.

Even in cultures where physical contact is generally more reserved, there are historical instances of embraces being used in diplomatic contexts. For example, the famous ā€œsocialist fraternal kissā€ between Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev and East German leader Erich Honecker in 1979 became an of Cold War diplomacy.

Depiction of the socialist fraternal kiss in Berlin, Germany. Via LBM1948 on Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).

The strategic significance of Modiā€™s hugs

Against this rich historical backdrop, Modiā€™s embraces take on a deeper significance. They are not just spontaneous displays of affection but calculated diplomatic moves that bridge ancient traditions with modern international relations.

Geopolitics are often cold and formal; interactions are guided by strict protocols and careful words. Touch, therefore, serves as a disruptive force. It humanizes interactions, breaks down barriers, and creates a sense of intimacy that few other diplomatic gestures can achieve.

When Modi embraces a world leader, he is sending a clear message: India values personal connections, and relationships are built on more than just agreements and treaties. This approach aligns with ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s broader diplomatic strategy, which emphasizes soft power and cultural diplomacy as key tools in its international relations.

To dismiss these hugs as mere quirks or cultural misunderstandings would be to underestimate their strategic significance. In a world where geopolitical tensions often dominate headlines, these embraces serve as powerful symbols of unity and shared humanity.

Modiā€™s embraces have become a unique form of non-verbal communication in his diplomatic toolkit. They can convey warmth where words might fail, break ice in tense situations or reinforce the strength of existing relationships. In some cases, they have even become in themselves, drawing attention to ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s diplomatic engagements and the prime ministerā€™s personal brand of leadership.

Moreover, these hugs align with ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s aspirations on the global stage. As India seeks to position itself as a bridge between East and West, North and South, Modiā€™s hugs symbolize the countryā€™s ability to connect diverse cultures and political systems.

This ā€œhug diplomacyā€ has drawn , however. Some view the embraces as overly familiar or even culturally insensitive, especially when dealing with leaders from more reserved cultures. Others argue that such gestures can be seen as unprofessional or distracting from substantive diplomatic issues.

Thereā€™s also the risk of overuse. If every diplomatic meeting ends with this gesture, does it lose its significance? Critics argue that the frequency of the prime ministerā€™s embraces might dilute their impact or make them seem less sincere.

The power of human connection

Despite these challenges, the enduring popularity and discussion surrounding Modiā€™s hugs speak to a fundamental truth about human interaction: Physical connection matters. In a world increasingly dominated by digital communication and remote interactions, a simple embrace can carry profound meaning.

As the ancient Greeks and Romans understood, and as Indian tradition has long emphasized, physical gestures can convey what words often cannot. They can build trust, foster goodwill and create lasting impressions in ways that formal speeches or written agreements cannot.

Modiā€™s ā€œhug diplomacyā€ is more than just a quirky diplomatic style; itā€™s a bridge between ancient cultural practices and modern diplomatic strategies. Drawing from the rich traditions of Aalingan in India and echoing touchā€™s historical significance across cultures, the hugs serve as a powerful reminder of our shared humanity in a divided world.

As we continue to navigate the complex, high-stakes landscape of international relations, perhaps we should view these embraces not as oddities to be questioned, but as invitations to consider the role of personal connection in diplomacy. While divisions seem to grow by the day, a warm human touch might just be the simplest yet most profound way to unite us.

As the saying goes, ā€œhugs are the universal medicine.ā€ Sometimes the most effective solution can be a heartfelt embrace.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Modiā€™s Uplifting Hugs Form Beautiful Connections in World Diplomacy appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Even in a mature democracy like the United Sates, this level of narcissism, misogyny, and megalomania are not uncommon. Donald Trump, with a similar set of traits, will seek the highest office in the United States for the third time this November. However, unlike Trump, Modiā€™s vice-like grip on most democratic institutions make his messianic assertions a monumental challenge for India.

Narcissism

Three of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s most populous states voted decisively against Modi this year in a stunning rebuke to his narcissistic leadership.

In Uttar Pradesh, by far ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s most populous state ā€” with a whopping 80 seats out of the Lok Sabhaā€™s 543 ā€” Modi thought that he could launch ambitious reform schemes without paying attention to their effects on real people. His scheme eliminated opportunities for young citizens to spend their career in the armed forces, replacing them instead with a four-year tour of duty after which a soldier would retire without a pension. Certainly, reform is much needed, given the rapidly changing nature of warfare. But Modi rammed the scheme through while ignoring the dismal job prospects young graduates would face due to his whimsical economic policies.

In Maharashtra, Modi assumed that he could investments to Gujarat instead of letting the state administration attract investors, boost economic activity and create well-paying jobs. Marathas for their community and farmers under adverse climactic conditions. These events should have served as warning signs to Modi about his failing policies. Yet in his make-believe world, there is no acknowledgment of failure, let alone ownership.

Modiā€™s treatment of West Bengal was perhaps the most egregious example of his narcissism. By in the stateā€™s affairs through the centrally appointed governor and selectively unleashing investigative agencies on opposition politicians, he thought he could subvert the mandate Bengalis gave to their immensely popular Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. When that yielded limited success, he thought he could get away with funds due to the Bengalis from the central government.

Modiā€™s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in all three states this year. Modi might have thought that he could rule the entire country like the state of Gujarat (his backyard) with no accountability, but voters in these states sent him a timely reminder about owning up to his failures.

As if the setback at the ballot box were not enough, even Mohan Bhagwat, the head of BJPā€™s ideological fountainhead Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), subtly Modi to tone down his arrogance.

Misogyny

Despite these setbacks, Modi survives as prime minister. While the BJP lost its majority in parliament, the National Democratic Alliance coalition of which it is a part still controls the Lok Sabha. Perhaps they were able to survive this well because of the lack of an aspirational vision from the opposition.

On the other hand, Modiā€™s claims of building some mythical new India notwithstanding, the mixed message from this election indicates that his tenure, with some successes and some failures, is similar to almost all the previous administrations, especially in one important way: misogyny. Modiā€™s enablers, funders and blind followers, especially in the developed world, must now reckon with Modiā€™s attitude toward women.

India can take pride in having had women elected as Prime Minister and Presidents, but we remain a heavily patriarchal society. 

Since Modi was a foot soldier of the RSS ā€” an organization that the patriarchal law code Manusmruti one of the guiding documents for Indian society ā€” before entering politics, his treatment of women should not surprise anyone. He about abandoning his ex-wife for decades, acknowledging her existence only at the time of filing an election-related affidavit. He failed to address his own home ministry an active role in releasing the Hindu convicts sentenced for murdering the family of and then raping a pregnant Muslim woman. He foul, tasteless language against Mamata Banerjee. He BJP leaders accused of sexual assaults against women.

Sadly one can find these traits in politicians around the world, including opposition parties within India. It does not make Modi exceptional. However, his recent assertion, conveniently made after his motherā€™s passing, that he believes he is not biologically born to her, was truly exceptional and should worry even his most ardent supporters. The standard-bearer of a country making such bizarre and anti-women statements should concern those who live in more equal societies, root for womenā€™s empowerment in India, and still unabashedly support Modi, especially when he is not the only person in the BJP to lead the country.

Megalomania

Lastly, it is high time the Indian mainstream media reflect on the way they have been feeding Modiā€™s megalomania.

Megalomania is more than just narcissism. As a narcissist, Modi thought that he was bigger than his own supporters. As a megalomaniac, he seems to think that he is bigger than ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s democratic institutions themselves.

Barring Indira Gandhi, who employed slogans like ā€œIndira is Indiaā€ and went on to declare a state of emergency, Indian Prime Ministers before Modi had the gravitas and humility to appreciate their role as democratically elected leaders. However, after ten years in power, Modi started that he was sent, to use his own words, by the Parmaatma ā€” the divine, universal Self of Hindu philosophy ā€” to serve those who have faith in him. With Pakistan next door, we donā€™t have to go too far to witness how invocation of god in discharging your duties towards a republic can destroy a system of representative democracy.

Modi sidelined the other institutions of the state and focused all attention on himself. One would think the Indian press, being the fourth pillar of democracy, would have demanded press conferences and posed tough questions to a democratically elected leader. Instead, most of the mainstream TV media and for the scripted crumbs thrown at them by the self-appointed vishwaguru, or the master of the universe.

Since the central governmentā€™s advertising is the main source of revenue for most of the Indian media outlets, they have done the governmentā€™s bidding for decades. However, after the 1991 reforms and the subsequent of the private sector in broadcast media, India did see a steady growth in news channels holding their leaders accountable. Even a cursory look at the TV news coverage in the decade preceding Modiā€™s first national victory in 2014 would drive that point home. Yet it seems that most of these outlets abdicated their primary duty after 2014.

This was left to a handful of online outlets and civic-minded YouTube influencers ā€” frivolous lawsuits, BJPā€™s online troll armies, attacks from friends and family and, in some cases, even jail time and death threats ā€” to show the mirror to Modi. People in India and abroad who cared about Indian democracy kept hammering home the real issues facing India. As this author had pointed out as early as mid-2020, it was obvious to anyone following Modiā€™s use of public morality and religious tropes to defend inane economic policies that India was well on its way to losing its demographic dividend.

Luckily, Indian voters realized sooner than the media honchos sitting in comfortable offices on the governmentā€™s dime that one cannot eat religion for dinner. Modiā€™s megalomania might make him believe that he is serving God, but the voters need jobs for two square meals. They need due process and constitutionally mandated fundamental rights for a dignified life. And they need leaders accountable to them ā€” not metaphysical entities ā€” to achieve those goals.

Visionaries like Babasaheb Ambedkar, who led the drafting of India’s constitution, enshrined universal adult franchise to guard against the narcissism, misogyny and megalomania of leaders like Modi. Still, the 2024 elections are only a minor course correction. India remains more likely to squander the potential demographic dividend by getting older before it gets richer. And it is anybodyā€™s guess whether Indian media will learn their lessons. Nonetheless, thankfully for India and sadly for Modi, his god does not vote.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Sadly for Modi, His God Does Not Vote appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s elections operate in five-year cycles. In 2019, the Modi-led BJP won 303 seats and formed the government on its own. Modi emerged as an all-powerful leader who ran the country like a CEO. This time, the BJP won 63 fewer seats than in 2019. More importantly, Modi had declared ā€œAbki Baar, 400 Paarā€ (ā€œThis Time, Over 400ā€) and set a target of 400 seats for the BJP. Clearly, Modi and the BJP fell quite a bit short.

The Modi-led BJP is part of a coalition named the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), which has many smaller regional parties. Alone, the BJP falls short of the magic figure of 272 in the Lok Sabha, but the NDA coalition has won 293 seats, enabling the BJP to form a government. As a result, Modi has won a historic third term. Only Jawaharlal Nehru, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s first prime minister, won a third term as prime minister before; Modi has definitely made history.

However, Modiā€™s victory is Pyrrhic. He set expectations so high that the reduced NDA majority feels like a defeat. How did ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s popular high-flying, first backward caste prime minister come crashing down to earth?

In a nutshell, the Modi government lost touch after ten years in power. The BJP ā€” literally the ā€œPeople of India Partyā€ ā€” was a grassroots movement for decades. Note that the opposition Indian National Congress (INC), is a top-down dynastic party. It is ruled by the Nehru family with fifth-generation Rahul Gandhi, Jawaharlalā€™s great-grandson, in charge. Also, the INC ruled India for most of the period from its independence in 1947 to Modiā€™s historic victory in 2014. In contrast, the BJP has a long tradition of internal party democracy.

The BJP is a Hindu nationalist party, which was largely formed by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS, literally National Volunteer Organization). They have been called ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s fascist khaki shorts but they are really the Hindu version of Jesuits. Largely single men, disproportionately from humble Brahmin families, spend their lives as community organizers. They are headquartered in Nagpur, a city in western Maharashtra that is geographically almost the center of India.

Historically, the BJP has relied on the RSS cadre to turn out the vote. This ground game has given the party an organizational edge in Indian politics. Modiā€™s popularity led him to sideline the RSS, state-level BJP leaders and even local party workers. Emulating the Nehru family model, Modi began appointing favorites and former bureaucrats to top positions such as ministers in his cabinet and chief ministers of BJP-run states. In short, Modi, his number two, Home Minister Amit Shah, and the BJP president Jagat Prakash “J. P.” Nadda have grown out of touch with their own party base. This top-down model cost the BJP heavily in these elections, particularly in the north and the northwestern Hindi heartland of Rajasthan, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh (UP). 

In a move reminiscent of Aesopā€™s ā€œGoatherd and the Wild Goats,ā€ Modi ignored his traditionally loyal upper caste base to make populist overtures to the lower castes. Modi offered them a cereal dole (five kilograms of wheat or rice every month), cooking gas and other goodies. However, Rahul Gandhi promised rather generous monthly cash transfers. All parties are now engaging in a race of competitive populism that the Modi-led BJP canā€™t win. So, the BJP lost some lower caste and class votes while alienating the middle and upper castes and classes, who pay most of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s taxes.

Modi alienated upper castes and state parties

In UP, the most populous Indian state, and neighboring Rajasthan, Modi turned off upper-caste Rajputs and Brahmins with his high-handed style of leadership. For example, he declined to give tickets to the candidates chosen by popular UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, a Rajput, and instead ran outsiders and even turncoats from other parties. Rajasthanis and UP walas disapprove of the Gujarati elite ordering them around like peons. So, many of them stayed home when it came time to vote.

Local party leaders feel that they have no opportunity to move up, as Modi and Shah have filled the top spots with bureaucrats. While they may not have exactly turned against Modi, they were less incentivized to whip up their voters very enthusiastically. The Modi governmentā€™s new Agnipath scheme ā€” army soldiers are recruited for only four years and only 25% of them are retained ā€” proved enormously unpopular in these states, which provide large numbers of large soldiers. The fact that the Modi government did not follow a consultative approach angered many traditional BJP voters who sat out the elections in protest.

Modi, Shah and Nadda not only got the Hindi heartland strategy wrong but they also erred in their southern strategy. In Maharashtra, home of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s financial capital, Mumbai, the BJP earned enormous ill will by turning against its ideological cousin, the Shiv Sena. This Marathi Hindu nationalist party that venerates Chhatrapati Shivaji, the local leader who began the demise of the mighty Mughal Empire, has been a natural BJP ally for decades. Note that the RSS headquarters are in Maharashtra too. So, this family feud cost the BJP dear. The BJP compounded this error by welcoming highly corrupt local leaders into the party and losing credibility as a result.

In Tamil Nadu, the BJP could have entered an alliance with All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), a local party that has historically been a part of the NDA. Instead, the BJP decided to fight the elections alone. As a result, both the BJP and the AIADMK were wiped out in the state. 

In short, Modi falsely believed that he was so popular that he could rely on his national brand to win votes without relying on the RSS, state party leaders, local BJP workers, regional parties and caste constituencies. The disappointing result has proven Modiā€™s presidential model of politics wrong.

Modi underperformed among lower castes and classes

In Modiā€™s defense, he has presided over ten years of competent administration, infrastructure investment, India, and economic success. Why did ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s poor not vote en bloc for the prime minister? Yes, 810 million Indians are getting free food grains and many others have benefited greatly from Sanatan Socialism, which is Modiā€™s version of the socialism India adopted after 1947. This means less theft by intermediaries and more targeted delivery of benefits. However, this does not mean more jobs. Economic growth rates might be high but so is unemployment. In fact, Modiā€™s 2016 demonetization of high currency notes destroyed small industries and the informal sector, worsening the jobs crisis. Hence, many poor voters whose expectations have risen in the last ten years turned away from Modi.

The lives of Muslim voters, many of whom are poor, have improved under Modi’s administration. In particular, Muslim women have benefited from Modiā€™s welfare programs and banning of triple talaq, the practice by which a Muslim man could divorce his wife by saying ā€œdivorceā€ thrice. Yet Modiā€™s inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric turned off Muslims who overwhelmingly voted strategically for candidates best placed to beat the BJP.

Simultaneously, the INC-led opposition appealed brilliantly to Dalits, the lowest castes in Indian society. Since independence, India has expanded a constitutionally enshrined policy of affirmative action to promote social justice in a historically stratified society. The opposition spread the rumor that the BJP would change the constitution and roll back reservations in government jobs and educational institutions. No political party in India would dare do such a thing because demography is destiny in a democracy. The Dalits and the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) ā€” who are poor, but not quite as poor as the Dalits ā€” form a majority of the vote, and the BJP does not want to commit political suicide. Yet the charge stuck.

In UP, the OBCs and the Dalits have had a fraught relationship. After independence, the INC used to rely on the Brahmin-Muslim-Dalit (BMD) alliance to win votes in North India. Over time the Brahmins left for the BJP, the Muslims started voting for regional parties and the Dalits flocked to their own parties. Thanks to the INC and the Samajwadi Party allying in UP, the Muslims, Yadavs (arguably, the most powerful of the OBCs) and Dalits voted together for the first time in decades. The Samajwadi Party won 37 and the INC six out of UPā€™s 80 seats. They had won five and one respectively in 2019. The BJP fell from 62 to 33 seats in UP in these elections. The Bahujan Samajwadi Party, a Dalit party in UP, went from ten seats in 2019 to zero this time around. Whoever wins UP has a good shot at running India and the BJP lost in ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s most populous state.

Modi is still prime minister but losses in UP and Maharashtra are big blows. His power not only in the country but also within the party is now greatly diminished.

What happens next?

What does this result mean for Modi, for the BJP, for India, and for its international partners and adversaries?

For the moment, there will not be a major policy shift. Modi has kept his cabinet unchanged, although Nadda will step down as party president. The government though weakened will carry on much as usual for now. However, the party will go through a period of soul-searching. The RSS and the BJP still have a strong will to power. They are already seeking to improve feedback loops and communication with various stakeholders. Obviously, this includes business leaders. More open channels could potentially prevent missteps like Modiā€™s poorly thought-out  2016 demonetization mentioned earlier.

The third Modi government is likely to push public infrastructure investment less aggressively. While this investment is necessary and will pay dividends for decades into the future, it also has a tendency to crowd out private investment. In Modiā€™s third term, there should be greater private investment and even consumption, creating new opportunities for US, Japanese and other foreign businesses. The French luxury sector, as well as Swiss businesses ā€”  following Bernā€™s recent massive free trade agreement with Delhi ā€” are also likely to do well in India.

Also, India will need to look for new sources of arms imports because Russia and Israel are both preoccupied with their own wars. France is likely to emerge as a big supplier, as it places fewer restrictions on its arms than the US does. 

China may see a weakened Indian government as an opportunity to put further pressure on India in the Himalayas or the Maldives. Conversely, China may also decide that now is the time for »åĆ©³Ł±š²Ō³Ł±š. This decision lies with Beijing and we will have to watch the smoke signals at Zhongnanhai carefully.

As far as Modi is concerned, he remains prime minister for now. However, political leaders both in the BJP and in other parties will be out for his blood. The INC may woo away one of Modiā€™s coalition partners by offering the leaders of regional parties the position of the prime minister. The INC has broken coalitions before and regional leaders might want their names in the national history books, even if they become prime ministers for just a month or two. 

The bottom line is that Indian democracy is far healthier than what many Western and Indian pundits proclaim. These observers had been sounding the alarm bells about Hindu fascism and democratic backsliding in India. Many treated a Modi supermajority as inevitable. However, Indian voters proved these Chicken Littles wrong.

Like Indira Gandhi, Modi is a powerful prime minister, but he is not powerful enough to control elections. Indian voters have shown they remain in charge. Furthermore, BJP leaders, workers and voters have shown that Modi is not even in charge of his own party. Today, as it has for three quarters of a century, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s big, messy democracy is still going strong.

[ edited this podcast and wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/podcast are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Making Sense of India’s Mammoth Elections and Their Startling Results appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

The results are a bitter disappointment for Modi. He had been aiming for 400 seats in these elections. Still, Modi continues to be the most powerful leader in India. He campaigned across the length and breadth of the country, drawing big crowds. Millions voted for the BJP because of Modi and continue to support the party because of him. This is the first data point that much of the media seems to be ignoring. Note that the Indian National Congress (INC) has come a distant second with 99 seats.

Related Reading

The Truth About Why I Voted for Narendra Modi

The effectiveness of the safety net is the second valuable data point. The Modi governmentā€™s program to distribute five kilograms (11 pounds) of wheat or rice every month to over people. This has provided food security to the Indian masses. At a time when food inflation is raging across the world, the Modi government has saved millions of poor people from the pressure to earn enough to eat.

The third data point is that alliances saved the day for the BJP. The BJPā€™s new alliances forged in 2023ā€“2024 helped the party to retain power. The alliances formed with Janata Dal (United) in Bihar, JD (Secular) in Karnataka and Telugu Desam Party (TDP) in Andhra Pradesh have saved the day for the Modi-led BJP. In 2004, the BJP lost power after its ā€œIndia Shiningā€ campaign bombed at the electoral box office. In 2024, the party avoided that fate.

The fourth data point is the BJPā€™s continued hold over Central India. The BJP retained its hold on Central India. In Madhya Pradesh, Shivraj Singh Chauhan led the BJP to victory in 29 out of 29 seats. The INC contested 28 seats and lost all of them. In Chhattisgarh, the BJP won 10 out 11 seats. The INC won just one seat in the state. Both states have BJP governments and, if the anti-incumbency factor had taken root, the BJP might have been in trouble.

The fifth data point is that the BJP has succeeded in its strategy of expanding east and broadening the base of the party. The BJPā€™s huge efforts paid off to win votes in Odisha, where the BJP won 20 seats and the INC won only one. The local Biju Janata Dal drew a blank. It is true that this electoral outreach did not yield big results in West Bengal. Mamata Banerjeeā€™s All India Trinamool Congress won 29 seats; the BJP won 12, and the INC won one. Worryingly for the BJP, it lost six seats and its vote share fell from 40.64% to 38.73%.

The sixth data point is that the BJP has breached the opposition bastion of South India. The BJP made inroads into South India. In Karnataka, the party had lost the recent 2023 state elections. Of the 28 seats, the BJP won 17 seats and its ally JD(S) won two seats. The INC won just nine seats. In Telangana, the BJP won eight seats out of 17. The BJP also won three seats in Andhra Pradesh where it had won none in the last elections in 2024. The BJP also won the seat of Thrissur in Kerala, a historic first.

The seventh data point is that the Modi-led BJP still retains women support. Women voters continued to support Modi. By focusing on menstrual hygiene, toilets, piped water to homes and gas cylinders, the prime minister has won over women. Solid women support helped the BJP counter the youth disaffection arising from lack of jobs.

The eighth data point for the BJP is that a strong national security policy helped the BJP. Indians see the INC-led government from 2004 to 2014 as soft on Pakistan. Indians continue to trust Modi and the BJP with national security more than INC and its leader Rahul Gandhi.

The ninth data point for the BJP is fulfilling promises on core issues. The Modi-led government abrogated Article 370, which gave special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. This year, Modi also inaugurated the Ram temple in Ayodhya. This pleased many core BJP voters. Article 270 and the Ram temple are core issues for the BJPā€™s parent organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), In 2004, many RSS workers and BJP supporters were disappointed, leading to the fall of the BJP-led Modi government. 

The tenth and final data point for the BJP is that voters have rewarded the Modi administration for providing a relatively clean and competent national government. Before 2014, Indian voters always put corruption among the top three national issues. In fact, a national anti-corruption movement rocked the INC-led government in 2011 and decimated its public support. In contrast, Modi has won a third term like Jawaharlal Nehru, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s first prime minister, and made history.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Indian Elections: Ten Valuable Data Points for India’s BJP appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

If you are reading me in Washington, New York or London, you will probably be shocked to read that I voted for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is gunning for a third term. How could a beef-eating, wine-drinking atheist vote for the Hindu fascist or, worse, Hindu supremacist Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which is purportedly planning a final solution to ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s Muslim problem?

After numerous conversations with my Indian American granddaughter, who is addicted to The New York Times, and is protesting in favor of poor Palestinians in Gaza, I have finally decided to explain why.

Yes, Modi is deeply flawedā€¦

Today, mania has gripped India. Modi has millions of bhakts (devotees). In fact, ā€œModi Bhaktā€ is now a bona fide term in Hindi, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s national language. Of course, bhakti (devotion) is not a new phenomenon in India. It goes back centuries. When I was young, India was in the grip of Indira mania. Indira bhakts ruled the roost. I hate to confess, but even I was a minor bhakt of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s first woman prime minister. Yet people like me felt Indira mania had gone too far when her lackey Dev Kant Barooah said, ā€œIndira is India and India is Indira.ā€

Today, I feel Modi mania has gone too far. If you say something critical of our prime minister, millions of Twitter warriors give you rank abuse. This is partly because of our national character. Indians tend to have a weakness for personality cults. They easily become bhakts not only of politicians but also film stars, cricketers and even boring bureaucrats. These bhakts forget that their heroes are human and start treating them as gods.

Let us take the case of the late Jayaram Jayalalithaa. She became chief minister of the southern state of Tamil Nadu because, as per , she was the mistress of the charismatic film star-turned-politician Maruthur Gopalan Ramachandran. This Brahmin lady incongruously led an anti-upper caste populist party, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) and Tamils treated her as amma (mother).

If Jayalalithaa was the mother of the Tamils, Modi is now the paterfamilias of over one billion Indians. This father figure Modi is certainly autocratic. A chap in 51³Ō¹Ļ recently published an attack piece on Modi that claimed that the prime minister was worse than Indira Gandhi. This author is wrong, but he has a point. Before I carry on, I must point out that this wealthy gentleman was living in the US and making money during the Indira years. In contrast, I was very much in India and had to live through the Indira years. I can attest on oath that they were much worse than current times.

While Modi may not be as bad as Indira, he is charismatic, paranoid and likes to keep a tight grip on the helm of the state. Hence, the Prime Ministerā€™s Office (PMO) has expanded dramatically, ministers have become courtiers and Modiā€™s face decorates hoardings across the length and breadth of the nation. I know from friends and relatives in the BJP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the BJPā€™s parent organization, that Modi has sidelined every leader with a mass base in his own party. This is exactly what Indira did to the INC. Such top-heavy personality cults are certainly not healthy for democracy but are part and parcel of Indian political culture.

There is truth to the argument that Modi is a divisive leader. Indians inside and outside of the country have deeply conflicting views about him. For millions, the prime minister is almost a god. He has the Rama Temple in Ayodhya, which was smashed to smithereens by an invading Muslim army five centuries ago, and restored Hindu pride. Yet for people like my granddaughter and many in ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s anglicized elite, lower caste Gujarati and Hindi speaking Modi is the devil incarnate. They argue that he climbed to power on the corpses of thousands of Muslims who under his watch during the 2002 Gujarat riots. For such self-identified secular Indians, Modi is uncouth, uncultured and uncivilized. More importantly, they see the former roadside tea seller as antithetical to the values of the Indian constitution.

If the defenestrated elites do not view Modi kindly, Muslims view him most unkindly. Maulana Syed Arshad Madani believes that Modi follows a majoritarian agenda, targets Muslims and triggers riots. Madani is the leader of the legendary Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind ā€” a seminary in Deoband which our enlightened friends in the Taliban follow ā€” and he believes that women and men should not study together. He takes the view that women playing sports is not a good idea. This learned Islamic scholar and many others less doctrinaire than him believe that Modiā€™s Islamopobic strategy helps the BJP win Hindu votes.

Even if we discount Madaniā€™s trenchant criticism of Modi given his obvious bias, the prime minister has some obvious flaws. Like Indira before him, Modi is also arbitrary and autocratic. In 2016, the prime minister announced demonetization ā€” the withdrawal of large-denomination banknotes ā€” with little notice and no planning, to the death of thousands of small businesses. ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s GDP contracted and millions of jobs vanished. Arguably, this contributed to the unemployment crisis that plagues India today.

Under Modi, the Income Tax (IT) Department, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) have run a reign of terror. Together, they are now called ICE and, as per rumor, they are running an extortion racket in the name of their political master. These so-called loyal bloodhounds of the prime minister target opponents, harass them and even lock them up. 

Sure, India is corrupt. Major politicians often have stolen hundreds of millions of dollars. So, ED, CBI and IT should certainly target the corrupt. The thought of ICE turning the heat on rapacious thieves robbing the country is highly seductive. However, the ICE gang only seems to opposition politicians. Furthermore, when these politicians ditch their parties and join the BJP, their corruption charges magically disappear. The opposition calls this the washing machine effect, and they have a point. Note that the opposition behaves no differently when it controls the apparatus of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s colonial state. Under Indira, every opposition leader and troublesome journalist was simply locked away in a dark cellar.

Those who live in nice neighborhoods in the West like my bleeding heart liberal granddaughter have to realize an important fact. For centuries, India has functioned through rule by law, not rule of law. Modi offers India more of the same: an Indira-light beer.

ā€¦but he has some real achievements

Now that we have gone through some flaws of the Modi-led BJP government, we have to examine some of its virtues, too. Are hundreds of millions voting for Modi simply illiterate and indoctrinated? Are they, in the words of John Stuart Mill, ā€œnot in the maturity of their facultiesā€ and hence are making bad choices? Doesnā€™t this logic sound just a touch undemocratic, patronizing or even colonial?

Even an upper-crust Brahmin like me does not believe that most people are stupid. The reality is that hundreds of millions of Indians are not idiots. They are voting because the prime minister has racked up solid achievements. Above all, the Modi government has pulled off a significant reduction in poverty. It has achieved this by successfully a national biometric identification system called Aadhaar. The INC does deserve credit for conceiving this system, but it is the Modi-led BJP that implemented Aadhaar with vigor since taking charge in 2014.

Aadhaar enabled the government to open millions of bank accounts for poor people and direct cash benefits to over 900 million individuals. In the past, an INC prime minister named Rajiv Gandhi, the son of Indira and the father of the current leader Rahul, that only 15% of the allocated funds reached the beneficiaries. By cutting out the middlemen and streamlining the delivery of benefits, Modi has made a tangible difference to the lives of the poor.

The prime minister has focused on low-income households and provided them with public services for the first time in ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s history. More than 800 million Indian citizens five kilograms (11 pounds) of wheat or rice every month. By 2019, the Modi government had already well over 100 million toilets. Millions, especially women, now no longer have to relieve themselves in the open, and they feel a lot safer as a result.

In addition, the government has distributed cooking gas to poor households. The percentage of households with access to cooking gas from 61.9% as of April 1, 2016, to 99.5% as of January 1, 2021. Cooking with firewood and dried cow dung is labor-intensive, not to mention terrible for womenā€™s eyes and lungs. Cooking gas makes kitchen work a lot less onerous for women and extends their lives. As Christopher Roper Schell explained in 2022, distributing these gas cylinders and implementing other welfare schemes has made Modi popular with female voters.

In 2014, 88% of villages in India had access to electricity. By 2021, did. Under Modi, power generation has increased dramatically. The prime minister has also bet big on solar power. India is now the third-largest producer of solar energy in the world. Modiā€™s government has cut the red tape for installing rooftop solar and is making a big push to increase solar power production dramatically.

The Modi government has also piped water to millions of homes and built no less than 25 million homes since 2016. While the government has fallen short of its goal to provide clean drinking water to all villages, it has made commendable progress. Building homes, providing piped water, constructing toilets, supplying cooking gas cylinders and distributing food grains have won Modi the support of the poor.

There is one bold act for which Modi does not get enough credit. Speaking from the ramparts of the historic Red Fort on August 15, 2020, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s Independence Day, Modi broke a big taboo by menstrual hygiene. He announced a scheme to start 6,000 centers to distribute more than 50 million sanitary napkins for just one rupee (ā‚¹1 = $0.01, so just one cent). India has had many women leaders, but no politician before Modi demonstrated the empathy or the courage to publicly address this issue. For centuries, millions of Indians have regarded menstruation and menstruating women as unclean. By making this issue a priority, Modi demonstrated great political courage and moved Indian society in the right direction.

Modi has not only succeeded in what 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh and geopolitical guru Manu Sharma call Sanatan Socialism ā€” traditional Hindus like to call their religion Sanatan Dharma, the ā€œeternal orderā€ ā€” but also followed decent policies on national security and the economy. The Modi government has acted more robustly against Pakistan and managed to control domestic terrorism so far. It has also delivered robust economic growth and built infrastructure at a record pace.

Even opposition leader Shashi Tharoor, a handsome devil rumored to have one of his wives, has given Modi his due on the infrastructure front. In an op-ed for Project Syndicate, Tharoor the Modi government for ā€œthe rapid construction of much-needed infrastructure, including new airports, ports, and highways, enabled by streamlined procedures, quick approvals, and extensive reliance on private contractors.ā€ He went on to say that Modiā€™s ā€œinfrastructure boom has changed the face of many parts of India, and the work continues, with large new investments in modernizing ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s railway network.ā€

The Modi government has also won praise from American software gurus. I was struck by Wes Kussmaulā€™s piece in 51³Ō¹Ļ which lauded Indian achievements in building the ā€œIndia Stack,ā€ an indigenous set of technologies for the digital age. If you live in Europe, you are now living as a serf in what Yanis Varoufakis calls the era of . You search for everything via Google, use Google Maps to get from one place to another, buy your stuff off Amazon, post images on Instagram, send messages on WhatsApp and perhaps love your fancy iPhone. You operate very much within the system created by American tech giants who make your life convenient but squeeze every cent out of you for the privilege of doing so. In India, we are also living under the same technofeudalism, but at least we are trying to revolt.

±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s Unified Payment Interface (UPI) enables me, my driver and my vegetable vendor to buy everything from train tickets to onions using our phones. In our daily lives, we barely use cash anymore. Kussmaul tells us that India has been able to leapfrog Western economies and gone from cash to digital payment systems at extraordinary speed. In June 2016, UPI had no transactions. Fast forward to April 2024 and it recorded over 13 billion transactions in the month. Since 2021, India is the in the global real-time payment market followed by China and South Korea.

The Modi government is trying to develop BharOS, an operating system for use in government and public systems. In addition, it has been developing digital infrastructure called the India Stack. As per the International Monetary Fund (IMF), ā€œthe India Stack is access to finance.ā€ The IMF estimates that 1.2 out of 1.4 billion Indians, nearly 90% of the population, have signed up for Aadhaar. Bank accounts are linked to this digital identity, enabling direct cash transfers to the poor. Payments through UPI enable the poor to engage in daily digital transactions using their phones.

Developers are building Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) based on the India Stack to solve many hard problems. This combination of public digital infrastructure and private entrepreneurship is unique in the world. The US has handed over its digital infrastructure to modern-day robber barons like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk. As stated earlier, Europeans are serfs to American tech barons and Europe is a digital dinosaur. The Modi government has shown great vision in implementing Aadhaar, UPI and the India Stack as well as pushing for BharOS.

There is really no alternative

When Indira was the de facto queen of India, many said that she benefited from the ā€œthere is no alternativeā€ (TINA) factor. In fact, they had a point. Indians had high hopes when Morarji Desai replaced Indira in 1977, becoming the first non-INC prime minister of the nation. However, Desai turned out to be an unmitigated disaster. Well-meaning but narrowminded, this doctrinaire Brahmin sold the Research and Analysis Wing down the river because he suspected ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s premier intelligence agency to be a touch too loyal to Indira. 

For good reason, Pakistan this useful idiot its highest award: the Nishan-e-Pakistan. A late relative told me the story of Desaiā€™s stupidity in the sort of gory detail that you do not get on Wikipedia or any online source. Sadly, we Indians do not put things into writing, and a lot of my relativeā€™s knowledge is lost. Suffice to say, Desai was a dunce. His successor Charan Singh was worse. Unsurprisingly, Indira stormed back to power in the 1980 elections, barely three years after losing to Desai, Singh & Co, despite her god-awful track record during the Emergency.

Like Indira, Modi benefits from the poverty of credible parties and competent personalities in Indian politics. The INC is no longer the party of Mahatma Gandhi. It is a fiefdom of the Nehru dynasty. The remarkably handsome Rahul Gandhi, Indiraā€™s half-Italian grandson, is the big boss of the INC. He has walked from the south to the north of the country, and this fit hunk is probably well-meaning too. Yet Rahul is wedded to the socialism his family imposed on India and is proposing what Atul Singh calls ā€œLatin America-style populismā€ in India. Rahul is promising jobs for everyone, free cash every month to the poor and more. To pay for these freebies, his adviser Sam Pitroda is threatening an that is terrifying the middle class but would still cover a mere fraction of the lavish expenses the INC is proposing. In fact, Rahulā€™s promises threaten to make India a South Asian Argentina and send shivers down my spine.

There is also another tiny matter that bothers even a Brahmin like me. I see excessive dynasticism as the bane of Indian culture. It is rampant not only in politics but also law, business and Bollywood. Atul has incessantly mocked me for supposedly having higher status than him per our caste system. For far too long, caste was defined by janma (birth), not karma (deed). This caste mentality has led to the extraordinary power of the ā€œlucky sperm clubā€ in India. Rahul is the shiningest star of this club. Indiraā€™s grandson may not be stupid, but he lacks real intelligence, judgment and experience. Surrounded by sycophants, Rahul has no dirt under his fingernails. He is the boss of the INC only because he belongs to the Nehru dynasty. This dynasticism afflicts politics in all of South Asia, not just India. In large part, I voted for Modi to keep Rahul out of power because I have had enough of the Nehru dynasty for one lifetime.

Apart from the BJP and the INC, we do not have national parties. Let us take a look at South India. Kerala, a state of over 34 million people on the southwestern tip of India, is ruled by communists. They have succeeded in increasing literacy and improved the stateā€™s in the Human Development Index (HDI). However, businesses find it tough to operate in Kerala, and jobs are hard to find. Malayalees, Keralaā€™s skilled people, work around the country and abroad, especially in the Persian Gulf. Fundamentally, the land known as ā€œgodā€™s own countryā€ lives off tourism and remittances. Hence, communism sort of works. Elsewhere in India, communist parties are now practically extinct.

Tamil Nadu, a state of over 81 million people on the southeastern tip of India, is ruled by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). The party traces its roots to a social equality and social justice movement that was rightly tired of discrimination by snooty Brahmins. Even as a Brahmin, I can see the appeal of DMKā€™s early subaltern philosophy. Ironically, the DMK is no longer a champion of equality or justice. Just as North Korean communists have installed a Kim monarchy, the DMK is in thrall to the Karunanidhi family.

Muthuvel Karunanidhi served as chief minister of Tamil Nadu for over five terms between 1969 to 2011. He was a gifted writer and canny politician. As early as 1937 (ten years before independence), he became a student leader opposing the imposition of Hindi as ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s national language. In a spectacularly successful career, Karunanidhi ruled Tamil Nadu for almost 20 years. His political rival was the once slim and then portly Jayalalithaa, whom I described above. Her party, the AIADMK, is now a spent force. In contrast, the DMK is still ruling Tamil Nadu and its leader is none other than Karunanidhiā€™s son. Believe it or not, his name is Muthuvel Karunanidhi Stalin, named after none other than the murderous Soviet tyrant Joseph Stalin.

M.K. Stalin is certainly not bloodthirsty like his namesake. However, the choice of the name reveals his dynastyā€™s preferences. To be fair, Tamil Nadu is a state that has done well in educating its people, boosting its industrial production and developing a decent . However, I have a nagging suspicion that Stalin is far too happy to flirt with Tamil nationalism to win votes. In 2022, he with a Tamil extremist convicted of killing Rajiv Gandhi, the good-looking father of the handsome Rahul Gandhi, causing much disquiet among old Rajiv loyalists. Yet in 2024, Rahul Stalin his ā€œelder brother,ā€ and both are part of the 28-party INDIA alliance seeking to topple the Modi-led BJP. Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed.

North of Tamil Nadu lies Andhra Pradesh (54 million people) where Yeduguri Sandinti Jagan Mohan Reddy rules as chief minister. Like Rahul and Stalin, Reddy is yet another member of the lucky sperm club where members inherit top political jobs from their fathers. From my fellow Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers in Andhra Pradesh, I have heard many juicy tales about the Reddy clanā€™s corruption. Apparently, their Christian faith has not given these Reddys any sense of sin, and they fail to avoid the temptation of self-enrichment at the cost of taxpayers.

The other two southern states of Telangana (nearly 40 million) and Karnataka (over 64 million) are ruled by INC. In fact, there is only one other INC chief minister in the country, and he rules the northern Himalayan state of Himachal Pradesh (less than seven million) on the China border. All three INC chief ministers hail from humble backgrounds, but they are regional satraps who pay obeisance to Rahul just like Mughal governors did in the 18th century. The fact that the INC rules only three out of the 28 states of India is telling of how far the grand old party has fallen since 1947.

The space vacated by the INC has been filled by regional parties around the country. A full list of them would make this long piece even longer. So, I will highlight two parties that have a strong support base and will give you a flavor of India.

The first is the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) founded by Mamata Banerjee in 1998. This ex-INC leader became the first woman chief minister of West Bengal in 2011 and continues to rule this state of over 100 million people. Didi (elder sister), as Banerjee is called, is a feisty and charismatic politician. Yet she is a regional leader with no appeal outside of her home state, just like M.K. Stalin. The Didi-led TMC defenestrated the communists who had been in power for many decades. Yet she has not been able to either increase per capita income or living standards during her time in office. My IAS friends tell me that her goons beat up her opponents more thoroughly than the infamous communist cadres. Didi yells at some of these friends from time to time. 

If Modi has cultivated the Hindu vote, Didi has wooed the In fact, some TMC Muslim leaders are said to be criminals. In February, party leader Arabul Islam was in a murder case. Later that month, another leader named Sheikh Shahjahan was as well. Villagers of his native Sandeshkhali accused him of land grab and sexual assault, and celebrations broke out in the village on news of his arrest. A Bengali soldier in the Indian Army personally told me that Shahjahan had taken over his land. As per his account, this Muslim mafia boss had been taking over the land of serving soldiers in the defense and paramilitary forces. Our soldier went on to tell me that the TMC had been turning a blind eye to Shahjahanā€™s criminal activities because he delivered the local Muslim vote to Didi.

For all its faults, the TMC is a powerhouse that dominates West Bengal. So, the party has little incentive to play second fiddle to anyone in its backyard. Thus, forming an alliance with the imperial INC, which she quit to form the TMC, becomes difficult. Formally, the TMC is a part of the left-leaning alliance. However, Banerjee that the INC proved unreasonable and so the TMC had ā€œdecided to go it alone in Bengal.ā€ Although Didi is a Brahmin, she is self-made and has no intention of kowtowing to Rahul, demonstrating the superficiality and brittleness of the INDIA alliance.

It is time for me to shine the light on the second party: Arvind Kejriwalā€™s Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). Kejriwal emerged as one of the leaders of the anti-corruption movement against the INC, catching the fancy of many middle-class Indians. He began the AAP on the tailwinds of the movement and signaled national ambition from day one. In 2014, he ran for the Lok Sabha (House of the People) ā€”ā€†the lower house of the Indian parliament ā€” against none other than Modi. The BJP leader the AAP leader in Varanasi, the temple town Mark Twain called ā€œolder than history, older than tradition, older even than legend.ā€

A year later, Kejriwal became chief minister of Delhi for the second time, winning 67 out of 70 seats. In 2022, the AAP won the Punjab elections as well. To some it seemed that the AAP would emerge as the national alternative to the BJP, replacing the moribund Nehru family-led INC. Instead, the AAP is embroiled in a involving liquor licenses. Supporters argue that the BJP is stitching their leaders up in a politically motivated investigation. Another scandal, which has nothing to do with the BJP, is far more damaging.

AAP leader Swati Maliwal has Kejriwalā€™s aide of beating her in the AAP leaderā€™s own home. From 2015 to 2024, Maliwal headed the Delhi Commission for Women. In January, she entered the Rajya Sabha (the Council of States) ā€” the upper house of the Indian parliament ā€” representing Delhi. Rumor has it that she was Kejriwalā€™s mistress and the AAP leaderā€™s wife got the aide to give Maliwal a thrashing. That rumor may be entirely untrue, but it damages Kejriwalā€™s reputation as Mister Clean Anti-Corruption Crusader.

I have another more fundamental problem with the AAP. It is a populist party bereft of principle. The party has definitely improved Delhiā€™s schools; it has delivered some primary healthcare, and it has resuscitated Mahatma Gandhiā€™s ideas on local democracy. Remember elected mayors in India still lack any power. Unelected 30ish-year-old IAS officers rule cities, towns and districts like feudal lords with no accountability. They answer upwards to their chief ministers, not downwards to the voters. By championing local democracy, the AAP has done one good deed. Yet the party does not practice what it preaches. Kejriwal has the party of many of its founders, cut all the tall poppies and created such a personality cult in the AAP that makes Modi look good by comparison.

In a nutshell, Indians do not really have an alternative to the Modi-led BJP in these elections. The INDIA alliance is a polyamorous marriage that would dissolve immediately into infighting in the unlikely event it won power. Too many of the allianceā€™s leaders are corrupt, populist and incompetent dynasts. Democracy is always imperfect, as Americans know too well. As of now, they face a choice between a convicted felon and a doddering 81-year-old losing his mind. Indian voters have better options. Like me, they prefer the scruffy street dog to the palace poodles.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post The Truth About Why I Voted for Narendra Modi appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

We are in the midst of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s parliamentary elections, which will determine who has power in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of Indian parliament. I had the opportunity to interview a young man about the Bharatiya Janata Partyā€™s (BJP) chances. The interviewee, Tahoor Ahmad, sat on a bench in Lal Chowk, a busy town square in the city of Srinagar, Kashmir. He held his face in his hand while responding to my questions.

An elderly voter poses for a picture after leaving a polling station in downtown Srinagar. Photo by Sahil Mir.

Has the BJP lost ground in the region? Will they win the primary elections? I asked Ahmad for his opinion. He did not want to answer directly; as a Kashmiri resident, he could face threats and backlash if his negative comments about the party were publicized. I assured him that he would remain anonymous, as I was only recording his voice. With this promise, he relaxed and shared his thoughts.

Ahmad says the elections are not as simple as the BJP losing ground or contesting results. In many constituencies, the BJP is not running candidates. Rather, it supports candidates from certain other parties. These include Altaf Bukhari, president of the Apni Party, and Sajad Lone, chairman of the Peopleā€™s Conference.

ā€œEveryone knows the fact that BJP is supporting both the parties, but these parties are declining the claims,ā€ Ahmad said. ā€œNow after the Lok Sabha elections in Srinagar, itā€™s clear that BJP has supported these parties, as yesterday a Kashmiri Pandit and a BJP member gave this message clearly to local media that BJP supporters are being ordered by higher-ups to cast their voteā€ in this way.

A queue of voters young and elderly wait at a polling station in Soura, Srinagar. Photo by Sahil Mir.

Ahmad continued: ā€œThe BJP has not filed their nomination in Kashmir directly but have indirectly filed for the Apni Party and Peopleā€™s Conference along with the Azad Democratic Party. They have realized that they have lost the electoral grip in Kashmir on ground zero. The BJP has ceased democracy here in the Valley and no one here is ready to speak against them.ā€

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is finding himself entangled in a political quagmire in Kashmir. It is widely expected that Modi will win a third term in the parliamentary elections. Modiā€™s recent campaign has been rife with , causing concern in Muslim-majority areas like Kashmir. It appears he wants to solidify a Hindu majority in India.

During a rally in Srinagar after Modiā€™s first visit in March 2024, he assured the crowd that he was striving to win their hearts. However, suggest that many attendees were government employees or BJP workers, seemingly coerced into participation under the threat of job loss.

Voters come and go at a polling station in Srinagar. Photo by Sahil Mir.

This time is particularly critical for Jammu and Kashmir. In the past, calls from separatist leaders could the region, but now those calls have lost significance. Elections, once seen as a means to protest, have become another tool for politicians to pursue their agendas.

After many years, people, especially Muslims, are eager to vote against Modiā€™s unfulfilled promises and fake commitments.

Frustration with the BJPā€™s broken promises

The BJPā€™s strategy to secure electoral dominance backfired, revealing deep-rooted discontent among Kashmiri residents. The party sparked in the region when it chose not to field candidates in Kashmir. Local residents say it is part of a grand plan to secure 370 seats in the general elections. This symbolic gesture is linked to the contentious abrogation of of the Indian Constitution, which revoked Kashmirā€™s autonomy in 2019. This move remains extremely unpopular with Kashmiris.

A long queue of voters forms outside a polling station in Srinagar. Photo by Sahil Mir.

As the elections draw to a close, the move has encountered formidable obstacles. The party has struggled to gain ground in the region. The division of Kashmir into two union territories ā€” Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir ā€” further complicated the electoral landscape, fueling tensions and widening societal rifts.

Khalid Ahmad, a middle-aged local from Srinagar, commented on the BJPā€™s past vows. It has to create jobs each year starting in 2014, when it rose to power. But the party has never delivered.

ā€œThe BJP promised 20 million jobs per year from 2014, and nothing such has happened as of now,ā€ Khalid stated. ā€œIt seemed to be a false promise, as India tops the unemployment list globally and Modi can only give fake promises and nothing else.ā€

A satisfied senior poses for a picture after voting in Srinagar. Photo by Sahil Mir.

ā€œWe have many grievances like unscheduled power cuts, the high bills because of smart meters and other issues ā€¦ which can be resolved only if we choose our representative today, and with the hope that our representative will resolve our grievances,ā€ said Roohi Ismail, a voter at the polling station in Nowhatta, Srinagar.

The All Parties Hurriyat Conference has historically issued calls elections in Kashmir. This time, however, it did not. Mirwaiz Mohammad Umar Farooq, Kashmirā€™s chief religious cleric, the situation: The Hurriyat was ā€œnot against the idea of electionsā€ in the region, because of ā€œserious alterations in the ground situationā€ following the BJP-led governmentā€™s abolition of Article 370. ā€œUnder these changed circumstances, issuing a boycott call, unlike before 2019, does not seem to carry the sense and effect that it did before. Besides, the people of J&K, baptised by fire from decades-old conflict, have gained enough political maturity and wisdom to know what best to do in the current situation,ā€ Mirwaiz stated.

I spoke to an eager voter in the Sonwar area of Srinagar. ā€œItā€™s my first vote and I am excited to cast it today,ā€ he said. ā€œAs I came out from my home today, there was a hope that with todayā€™s vote, something will change here in [the] Valley. We have witnessed many things in Kashmir ā€¦ BJP has lost ground in Kashmir, and thatā€™s the reason [it] didnā€™t contest [the] election here. They have failed to resolve issues [for the] people.ā€

A young man poses for a picture after voting in Zadibal, Srinagar. Photo by Sahil Mir.

Srinagarā€™s constituency is a game changer

The Srinagar Parliamentary Constituency has the highest number of candidates compared to other segments in Kashmir. It witnessed an interesting showdown on May 13, when the 1.74 million-strong electorate votes in five districts of the Valley.

Tanvir Sadiq, the Chief Spokesperson of Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, addressed local media. ā€œThis election is important as people have faith in democracy,ā€ he said. ā€œWhat happened in 2019 they are against, and people [want] development. The overall scenario about [the] Lok Sabha elections in Srinagar suggested that people have come out from [their] houses and have cast their vote.ā€ Ergo, those who oppose the repeal of Article 370 and vote against it will win this election.

Voters line up outside a polling station in Khanyar, Srinagar. Photo by Sahil Mir.

Bukhari shared his thanks to the voters on : ā€œGratitude overflows to the voters of Srinagar Parliamentary seat for their historic participation, a testament to the resilience of democracy. Heartfelt thanks to the Election Commission of India, UT administration J&K and all those involved for ensuring a smooth and hassle-free process throughout the day. Kudos to our J&K Apni Party leaders, workers and well-wishers also for their tireless efforts to mobilize the voters. Due thanks also to the Chief Electoral Officer J&K for ensuring transparent and smooth conduct of the process. This monumental turnout reflects a renewed faith in the democratic process. Letā€™s cherish this win-win situation for our countryā€™s democratic ethos.ā€

Election data revealed that Srinagar experienced a 37.99% voter . Chadoora, Charar-i-Sharief, Ganderbal, Khan Sahib and the Shopian Assembly constituency recorded a turnout of over 45%; Kangan topped them all with a 58.80% turnout. As expressed on DailyExcelsior, ā€œThe fourth phase of voting for General Elections to 18th Lok Sabha concluded peacefully ā€¦ with 37.99 % voting in the districts of Srinagar, Ganderbal, Pulwama and Budgam and Shopian partly.ā€

A woman poses for a picture after voting in Srinagarā€™s Rainawari area. Photo by Sahil Mir.

Officials claim this is the highest election turnout in decades. But will it prompt real change? India will have its answer when the parliamentary elections on June 4.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Modi and BJP See Colossal Surge of Kashmiri Counter-Votes appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Modeled after Great Britainā€™s Westminster system, India is a parliamentary democracy. After all, Westminster ruled India for nearly two centuries ā€” indirectly through the East India Company from 1757 to 1858 and then directly from 1858 to 1947 when India achieved its independence. This year, from May to June, citizens will vote for members of parliament (MPs) in the lower house, called the Lok Sabha. Parties are contesting 543 seats, and the leader who commands 272 MPs (a 50% + 1 majority) will become prime minister. The results are set to be announced on June 4.

Electoral map of India. Via ExactlyIndeed on Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Who are the key players in the Indian elections?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been in office since 2014 and is likely to win a historic third term. The BJP is a right-leaning nationalist party which opponents call Hindi fascists or Hindu supremacists. These critics allege, often with much exaggeration, how minorities feel threatened in India. In particular, Muslims are said to be under siege. Notably, Modi is ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s first backward-class prime minister ā€” a set of communities deemed to be historically disadvantaged because of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s inequitable caste system ā€” and is popular both amongst ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s middle class and its poor.

Even opponents praise Modi for targeted welfare programs. He has distributed free food grains to a staggering people. His government gives low-income women a monthly stipend of 1,200.50 rupees (approximately $16) and also provides cheap sanitary napkins for better menstrual health. The Modi government has built sanitation systems, provided piped clean water and delivered cooking gas cylinders throughout India. Naturally, poor women tend to vote for the Modi-led BJP.

Related Reading

Why Women Support Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi

Modiā€™s main contender is the left-leaning Indian National Congress (INC), which once led the freedom struggle. The INC has a rich history and was once democratic but now has become a dynastic fiefdom of the Nehru dynasty. Jawaharlal Nehru was ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s first prime minister and the son of a famous INC leader Motilal Nehru. He was a Fabian socialist who looked up to the Soviet Union but kept his distance from Moscow. Nehruā€™s daughter Indira Gandhi (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi) jumped enthusiastically into bed with the Soviets and amended the constitution to declare India a socialist country. Indiraā€™s grandson Rahul now is the leader of the INC, and he is running on a populist leftist platform, promising freebies to the public such as monthly cash transfers, increased subsidies, more government jobs and generous pensions.

There are other opposition parties in addition to the INC. They are often regional parties, but they tend to be more dynamic than the INC. The new Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) rules Punjab and Delhi. In the southern state of Tamil Nadu, which elects 39 MPs to the Lok Sabha, the established Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) is in power led by M.K. Stalin (who is neither a love child nor relative of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin).

The border state of West Bengal elects 42 MPs to the Lok Sabha. This state is the western half of the historical Bengal, which was partitioned between India and Pakistan in 1947. (East Bengal eventually declared independence 1971 and became Bangladesh.) Today, Mamata Banerjee, who left the INC when the Nehru family failed to give this regional satrap her due, rules West Bengal.

What are their records and what lies ahead?

The Modi government has done a great job building infrastructure. They are constructing roads, ports and railway lines day and night. Nitin Gadkari has been an exceptional minister of road transport and highways. Many middle-class Indians want him, instead of Modi, to be prime minister.

The Modi government has also built digital infrastructure. It has reduced the infamous leakage in government welfare programs. Rajiv Gandhi, Rahulā€™s father, once that only 15% of the disbursed amount reached the intended beneficiaries. By implementing a national identity card scheme, opening bank accounts for hundreds of millions and delivering benefits directly to their accounts, the Modi-led BJP government has reduced theft dramatically. Hence, Modi has a reputation for competence and the BJP has replaced the INC as the dominant party in Indian politics.

Yet Modi has made some wrong calls too. In 2016, he imposed demonetization ā€” withdrawal of high-denomination currency notes ā€” with no notice. This destroyed small businesses around the country and, in part, caused the unemployment crisis that India is suffering today. He practices what one of the two authors has called Modiā€™s policies Sanatan socialism.

Related Reading

India Enters the Era of Sanatan Socialism

Modi has made business and entrepreneurship a lot easier in this historically socialist economy. However, he still relies heavily on the bureaucracy, particularly the colonial, corrupt and spectacularly incompetent Indian Administrative Service (IAS). Policymaking continues to be haphazard, and the IAS still remains arbitrary. Businesses suffer because of a lack of policy certainty as well excessive regulation.

In fact, even members of the BJP and its parent organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), complain about Modiā€™s excessive centralization of power. Some BJP and RSS leaders go so far as to say that Modi is Indira Gandhi ā€œtrue sonā€ because of his absolutist tendencies. They even complain that Modi runs an IAS government with mere outside support from the BJP and the RSS.

Related Reading

Narendra Modi Is the New Indira Gandhi, Only Much Worse

For all his faults, Modi is still more free-market than opposition party leaders. The INC is promising Latin American-style populism to voters, which would derail growth and could even bankrupt the government. So, Modi is benefiting from what Indian political analysts the ā€œthere is no alternativeā€ (TINA) factor.

[ wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post FOĀ° Exclusive: Indian Elections ā€” Mammoth and Unparalleled appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Indira was the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s first prime minister from 1966. Note, she was not related to Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the Indian nation. Conveniently, many of the hundreds of millions of illiterate Indian voters and ignorant foreigners never realized that fact. Indira destroyed internal democracy within the Congress Party, centralized all power in her hands and designated her sons as her anointed successors.

Infamously, Indira ruled India as a de facto dictator for 21 months from June 25, 1975. During this period, she locked up journalists, political opponents and even eminent Gandhians (the Mahatmaā€™s followers) who had participated in ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s freedom struggle. Indira did not even spare the elderly Jayaprakash Narayan, the most eminent living Gandhian in the 1970s, packing him off to prison just like the British once did. Her son Sanjay forced millions of men to go through , anticipating the fixation of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) with population control.

In 1977, Indira called for elections, which she thought would result in a massive victory. Instead, voters booted her out and opted for a ramshackle opposition coalition. This was the first time the grand old Congress Party lost power in New Delhi. Since then, India avoided another brush with Indira-style authoritarianism for decades.

Sadly, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has changed that since he was voted into power in 2014. He has been particularly overbearing since winning a second term in 2019. Millions in India now argue that we are living through a second emergency and for good reason.

Modiā€™s measures have made him an Indira-like figure

Modi has engaged in a power grab of historic proportions. It is an open secret in Delhi that the Prime Ministerā€™s Office (PMO) rules the country with an iron hand. Even ministers in Modiā€™s cabinet have no real power. Favored Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers, largely from Gujarat (Modiā€™s home state), are the new barons and dukes who rule in the name of the prime minister.

Just as Indira weakened the Congress Party, Modi has undermined the BJP. Home Minister Amit Shah is the only one with any real power. Members of the BJP and its parent organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) refer to Modi and Shah as ā€œRanga and Billa,ā€ two ill-famed criminals who kidnapped and killed two siblings in 1978. Their argument is that Modi and Shah have kidnapped the BJP and the RSS, and their absolutism might kill both these organizations, which have historically been grassroots-driven organizations.

Just as Modi has sidelined the BJP and the RSS, so too has he undermined the institutions of the Indian state. Democratic principles of decentralization, accountability and separation of powers no longer matter in Modiā€™s India. Everyone in the government has to dance to his masterā€™s voice.

Modi has used the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to persecute anyone who does not toe his line. The Modi government has used the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to hound business leaders, journalists and political opponents. Before the Supreme Court of India on March 21, 2024, those accused under the PMLA did not even have the right to get bail. Selective use of UAPA, PMLA and other legislation has created a culture where rule by law, not rule of law, dominates. Simply put, the government uses the law to lock up or harass individuals it does not like.

Institutions are now Modiā€™s instruments to target his opponents. In March, the government the bank accounts of the Congress Party for failure to pay outstanding taxes. Authorities also Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who is the leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), on corruption and money laundering charges. Even many BJP/RSS leaders admit that the ED and CBI are now hounds who hunt hares for Modi and Shah. After Indira, India is once again in the grip of a climate of fear.

Freedom of the press has cratered. Modi has not given a single press conference since becoming prime minister. The Adani Group, his financial backers, has New Delhi Television (NDTV), the anglicized television channel that opposed Modi most. Former NDTV stars now ply their trade on YouTube or on Al Jazeera. No local television station is hiring them.

Print media is completely under the thumb of the Modi government, and social media bends to its will. After all, Twitter and Facebook make big money in India and are loath to antagonize the Modi government, which could and would hurt their bottom line. Furthermore, the Modi government has a sophisticated social media operation that disseminates propaganda, misinformation and even fake news.

Modiā€™s dangerous lies and anti-Muslim propaganda campaign

Modiā€™s social media team has WhatsApp with stories that Nehruā€™s grandfather was a Muslim. According to these stories, this grandfather was born in a red-light district ā€” that part of an Indian town where prostitutes live ā€” and the family remains closet Muslims to this day. The campaign paints Nehru to be a lover of beef, alcohol and nubile young women. As per this narrative, Nehru was a man of moral turpitude unfit to lead pious Hindus.

Numerous analysts have pointed out how the Modi-led BJP has imposed Hindu fascism in India. Note that Modi has never once expressed regret, leave aside apologized, for the 2002 Gujarat riots. These happened under his watch when he was chief minister and the US State Department barred Modi from entering the US for his suspected involvement in these brutal riots.

This year, Modi has a temple to the Hindu god Ram on the site of a medieval mosque, which was allegedly built on a previous Hindu religious site. Modi participated in an elaborate religious ceremony personally in a blatant religious appeal for votes.

The Modi government plans to implement the Citizen Amendment Act (CAA) offering Indian citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s neighboring countries. Opponents question why Parsis or Muslim sects such as Ahmadis are not included in the CAA. The answer is simple: Modi is mobilizing Hindu votes and weakening the secular fabric of the Indian republic.Ā 

For good reason, the BBC has just a story of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s 200 million Muslims becoming invisible in their own country. Hindu vigilantes have lynched Muslims suspected of consuming beef. Mosques are increasingly under threat. Talk of ā€œlove jihadā€ ā€” Muslim men marrying Hindu women and converting them to Islam ā€” is rife. Anti-Muslim hate speech has , especially in states ruled by the BJP.

This victimization of minorities makes India more like Pakistan. ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s secular democracy has been a beacon of hope to countries around the world as a shining example of how different religions and diverse communities can coexist. The Modi-led BJP government and the RSS have been slow dripping poison into the veins of Indian society. If this continues, India would make Yugoslavia look like a firecracker. By deepening and widening the Hinduā€“Muslim divide, Modi threatens the very idea of India.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Narendra Modi Is the New Indira Gandhi, Only Much Worse appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

In Indian elections, a diverse set of regional interests coalesces around the states. Thus, a large number of regional and national parties that oppose the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came together to form the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) in July 2023.

Across the various states, there are four different kinds of challenges that the opposition faces:

1. In some states, the BJP and more broadly the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) are not a serious contender, namely, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Punjab. 
2. In some states, the Indian National Congress (INC), as the main political party in INDIA, takes on the BJP directly, namely, Telangana, Karnataka, Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Assam. 
3. In a third group of states, INDIA faces off with the BJP, but led by parties other than the INC or even non-INDIA parties. These states are West Bengal, Jharkhand, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Delhi. 
4. In the last group of states, regional non-INDIA parties face the BJP, or the the BJP is a junior partner in an alliance. These states include Andhra Pradesh and Odisha. 

INDIA should take into consideration the varied political dynamics across these four groups if it is to have any hope of competing with the BJP at the national level. 

For the sake of brevity, this piece will examine each of these four groups by using a few large states as examples.

States where the BJP is not a serious contender

The three states where the BJP is not a serious contender are the South Indian states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and the Western Indian state of Punjab. 

In the case of Tamil Nadu, significant shifts have the political landscape due to the All India Anna Dravida Munetra Kazhagam (AIADMK)ā€™s decision to end its alliance with the BJP. Among other factors, BJP state leader Kuppuswamy Annamalaiā€™s vociferous of AIADMK leadership led to the split. Significant efforts by the BJP national leadership to maintain the alliance did not succeed.

For the AIADMK, the move may be an attempt to reclaim its independent political identity. For the BJP, the split makes building its presence in the state an uphill battle.

In contrast, INDIA in Tamil Nadu, led by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), has seat-sharing talks with its alliance partners. INDIA has been undertaking a vigorous political campaign against national governmentā€™s the economic agenda, including the implementation of many . The DMK, for its part, has also strongly critiqued the overall performance of the Modi government. 

There is a strong possibility that the AIADMKā€“BJP split will favor INDIA. As a result, alliance is likely to perform strongly in the 39 Lok Sabha seats of the state.

In the state of Kerala, the principal contest is between the INC-led United Democratic Front (UDF) and the Left Democratic Front (LDF) to the UDFā€™s left. Although both the UDF and the LDF are part of INDIA, they do not have seat-sharing arrangements for the national elections.

The Kerala BJP, on the other hand, is its focus on six of the total 20 Lok Sabha seats in the state. This approach involves assigning national government ministers to oversee these constituencies directly.

In recent years, the INC has compromised with certain BJP policies, such as the Citizenship Amendment , 2019 (CAA), that have been perceived as disfavorable to religious minorities. This has enabled the BJP to attempt to polarize the electorate along sectarian lines. Though the effort has not completely succeeded, the BJP has gained an opening to exploit in the state.

The political opening comes at a time when LDF, which is in government in Kerala, enjoys popularity due to its defense of the welfare system. Thus, the INC will likely have to share seats with LDF in this state. Despite its efforts, the BJP will at best emerge as a distant third.

Finally, in Punjab, the INC is in opposition to the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). Although both parties are part of INDIA on the national level, have not formed an alliance at the state level. There was about a possible alliance between the BJP and Punjabā€™s third party, Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal), but disagreements over seat-sharing have any electoral understanding.

Punjab remains the of the peasant upsurge that forced the BJP national government to overturn three farm laws that were seen as enabling corporate encroachment into agriculture. Thus, it is unlikely that the BJP will be able to make much headway in the state.

Related Reading

Indian Farmer Protests Explained

A brief glance into the political dynamics in the three states reveals the various reasons the BJP has a marginal presence. As a result, INDIA is in a position to exploit the BJPā€™s weakness to maximize its seat tally.

States where the INC faces the BJP directly

The states where the INC faces the BJP directly are Telangana and Karnataka, which belong to South India, as well as Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Goa, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Assam, which belong to the eastern, central and western parts of India.

In the last two Lok Sabha elections, held in 2014 and 2019, it was these states that helped the BJP attain a two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha rule the nation for ten years. A close look at the dynamics in these states in this group may provide an clue about whether this may happen a third time.

In Telangana, the INC leads both INDIA and the state government. While the has been able to achieve a seat-sharing arrangement with the Communist Party of India (CPI) there is no such arrangement with the CPI(M). Both leftist parties have a long of popular support in the state, so an incomplete seat-sharing arrangement may not be optimal for INDIA.

The Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) which is the principal opponent of the INC in Telangana, has a significant presence, and so does the BJP. The defeat of the in the state assembly elections late last year has weakened the party to an extent. Factors responsible for the defeat include neglect of education, unemployment and rising autocratic tendencies of the BRS leadership. The electoral prospects of the INC and BJP depend on which of these two parties will emerge as the principal beneficiary of the weakening of the BRS.

In Karnataka, the political landscape ahead of the 2024 elections has witnessed, with the BJP and the Karnataka-based Janata Dal (Secular) (JD(S)) forming an alliance. As a result, the JD(S) has been four out of 28 Lok Sabha seats. Despite the challenges this alliance poses, INDIA has some reasons to be hopeful.

Sections of the JD(S) have broken away to gravitate towards INDIA. The BJP has recognized the diminished political stature of the JD(S). Perhaps this is why the party has been allotted such a number of seats. Moreover, as the governing party in the state, the INC has restored some degree of welfare policies to push the electorate towards it.

In order to consolidate its position, INDIA may need to aim for the widest possible unity of non-BJP parties in the state, articulate alternative, non-neoliberal policies that challenge the BJP and where necessary focus on a selected number of seats in order to try to be victorious.

Related Reading

How to Beat the BJP by Overcoming the INCā€™s Organizational Challenges

Haryana as well has seen a change in political alliances with respect to the previous election. The alliance between the BJP and the Jannayak Janta Party (JJP) has . Meanwhile, the INC and AAP have come together as part of INDIA. The AAP has been allotted one out of the 10 seats in the state.

INDIA may choose to politically challenge the BJP on a number of issues including the promise of guaranteed minimum support price for crops. INDIA could also if required selectively target some seats in the state.

The electoral contest in Rajasthan involves some novel developments. In a break with past practice, the INC has entered into seat-sharing agreements with the Rashtriya Loktantrik Party (RLP) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)) as part of INDIA. Furthermore, the INC has entered into an alliance with the Bharatiya Adivasi Party (BAP).

The INC has also recently formed a with the Bharatiya Adivasi Party (BAP), which espouses issues of tribal people and is influential in a few districts in southern Rajasthan. The collaboration aims to consolidate tribal votes, which is pivotal in these regions. However, there is internal resistance within INC to the alliance due to fears that BAPā€™s rise might undermine INC electoral prospects in future elections.

The BJP in Rajasthan is afflicted by some, with Vasundhara Raje, who was the most important in the state level, seeming to have been sidelined by the party. 

To enhance its electoral prospects, INDIA may need to consider the possibility of forging alliances with the widest possible number non-BJP forces and also politically challenge the BJP on livelihood issues such as a guaranteed minimum support price for crops and conduct of a caste census in the state. 

In Madhya Pradesh, the INC, as part of INDIA has entered into an alliance with the Samajwadi Party. However, factionalism has severely impacted the state party, with reported differences between Kamal Nath and Digvijay Singh, the two most important leaders of the INC in the state.

In general, the BJP has performed strongly in the past few elections. Hindutva ideology is popular here, providing a strong platform for the BJP. The Madhya Pradesh INC must avoid the temptation to turn to in order to win votes. The state party should instead focus on livelihood issues, thus decisively challenging the BJP politically while seeking to deal with problems of internal factionalism. Where required, INDIA could seek to selectively target some seats to try and increase its seat tally in the state.

Gujarat will see direct competition between the INC and BJP in all 26 Lok Sabha seats. A BJP political stronghold, Gujarat gave the party all 26 seats in both the 2014 and 2019 general elections. In the state assembly elections of 2022, the BJP retained power with a commanding majority, winning 156 out of 182 seats.

However, the INC and the AAP have entered into a seat-sharing pact for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, with AAP contesting from the seats of Bharuch and Bhavnagar and the INC fielding candidates for the remaining 24 seats. This move aims to consolidate opposition votes and challenge the BJP stronghold, hopefully thereby preventing a repeat of the previous elections. INDIA may seek to concentrate resources on selected seats and focus on livelihood issues in order to try and deal with the organizational cum political strength of the BJP.

In Chhattisgarh, the BJP has indirectly sidelined its top state leader, Dr. Raman Singh, by getting him elected as the speaker of the state assembly.

The Chhattisgarh INC faces , though to a lesser extent than in Madhya Pradesh. The state party is seeking to improve its electoral prospects by nominating prominent state-level leaders as candidates. The INC may seek to challenge the BJP by focusing on livelihood issues while being open to building a wider alliance with non-BJP parties.

In Assam the INC is a coalition of 16 political parties called the United Opposition Forum, which behaves like the state-level INDIA alliance. The alliance has agreed on common candidates in all the 14 Lok Sabha seats.

A principal challenge confronting INDIA is the CAA. For decades, Assam has received many migrants from neighboring Muslim-majority Bangladesh. Issues of religious identity, and intertwine, making the CAA a particularly divisive issue in the state. The United Opposition Forum may seek to politically challenge the BJP on the CAA while also focusing the political debate on livelihood issues.

In the present group of states, the fundamental challenges faced by INDIA are threefold. One is the organizational weakness of the INC. The second is the political weakness of the INC in the battle of ideas, with the party struggling to formulate an alternative to the BJPā€™s neoliberal and Hindutva policies. The third is the lack of opposition unity. With the exception of Telangana, the states in the current group are those where the BJP had established an overwhelming dominance in the Lok Sabha elections of both 2014 and 2019. Unless INDIA finds a coherent strategy to challenge BJP in the present group of states, a majority in the parliament may be out of reach for the alliance.

States where parties in INDIA other than the INC face the BJP

The states where parties in INDIA other than the INC face the BJP are the eastern states of West Bengal, Jharkhand, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, the Western Indian state of Maharashtra and the Northern Indian state of Delhi.

The results may depend on the way in which both the NDA and INDIA deal with the multiple political parties in their midst.

Bihar is the third-most populous state in India. It has seen Chief Minister Nitish Kumar quit INDIA to rejoin the NDA. Likewise, Chirag Paswanā€™s Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) has rejoined the NDA, while the BJP has marginalized another party led by his uncle Pasupathi Paras within the NDA. Seat-sharing talks in the NDA are .

Seat-sharing talks within INDIA are also complete, as the opposition through a press conference in March. The Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) lead INDIA in Bihar. The INC, the CPI, the CPI(M), and the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist Liberation) also form part of the alliance.

The principal political issues that INDIA could touch upon include the inequities that were documented in the recent state-level caste census, the extension of the rural employment guarantee scheme to urban areas and guaranteed minimum support prices for agricultural products.

In Jharkhand, the (JMM) has already finalized its seat-sharing plan with the INC as part of INDIA. The RJD and the CPI(M) also form part of the alliance in this state. However, the exit of the CPI is a setback.

The NDA in Jharkhand principally consists of the BJP and JD(U). The of former Chief Minister Hemant Soren (belonging to the JMM) by the national government has raised questions as to whether the arrest of a sitting chief minister so close to elections politically motivated. However, INDIA may need to foreground livelihood issues to effectively combat the NDA.

Uttar Pradesh is the most populous state of India and thus elects the largest number of Lok Sabha seats. In the last few months, the NDA has added a number of small parties as its allies, notably including the Rashtriya Lok Dal, many of whose voters supported the 2020 farmer protests. INDIA in the state consists of the Samajwadi Party (SP) and the INC.

Another party is the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), whose support base seems to be in persistent decline. However, the decline of the BSP is not the only issue that the opposition needs to worry about in Uttar Pradesh. Competition for the same key voter groups between INDIA, the BSP and alliances like the may the electorate. The broader political fragmentation might impact the oppositionā€™s functioning as the non-INDIA parties behave as in certain areas rather than as substantial contenders.

There are three circumstances under which the opposition has a chance to challenge the BJP: (1) The SP successfully consolidates the electoral support of oppressed communities who were formerly BSP voters; (2) A broad opposition coalition is able to bring all parties together against the BJP; (3) INDIA runs a campaign grounded on livelihood issues such as employment and raising the guaranteed minimum support price for crops.

Maharashtra is the second-most populous state of India. Here, INDIA principally consists of the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Bal Thackeray) (SS(UBT)), the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharad Pawar) (NCP(SP)) and the INC. At the state level, INDIA is known by the name Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA). However, the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) which was one of the partners within INDIA in Maharashtra could not be within INDIA.

The MVA, which includes Shiv Sena (UBT), the INC and the NCP, finalized a deal for the Lok Sabha elections, with Shiv Sena (UBT) deciding to contest 21 seats, Congress 17, and NCP (SP) 10 respectively.

The NDA in the state consists of the BJP, Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde) (SS(ES)) and the Nationalist Congress Party (Ajit Pawar) (NCP(AP)).

The schism of Shiv Sena has resulted in a situation where the bulk of its activists and support base remains with the SS(UBT) while the bulk of its legislators are with the SS(ES). The Nationalist Congress Party split has resulted in the bulk of junior leaders supporting the NCP(AP) while the support base of the party is relatively more committed to the NCP(SP). This is reflected in the use of Sharad Pawarā€™s portraits by the NCP(AP) during the election campaign which the NCP(SP) halted through judicial .

The principal issues in the state revolve around livelihood. INDIA may try to stitch together the broadest possible unity of non-BJP forces in order to achieve significant electoral success.

In Delhi, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the INC, as part of INDIA, have into a seat-sharing agreement. A principal issue that is confronting the state is the sudden of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by e central government.

Other issues confronting the state include the persistent efforts by the central government to stymie the Delhi government and livelihood issues such as employment. For INDIA to be competitive in Delhi, it needs to challenge the BJP on the ideological plane.

In West Bengal, INDIA has not been able to at a seat-sharing agreement. The Trinamool Congress (TMC), which is the ruling party in the state, has announced its own for the Lok Sabha elections, but the leftist parties (led by CPI(M)) and the INC have entered into an electoral agreement.

The BJP is facing a setback due to internal divisions. The key political issues in the state revolve around the CAA and livelihood issues. If possible rise in the vote share of INDIA impacts the BJP more than the TMC, then the BJP is unlikely to achieve a meaningful advance in the state.

For INDIA to challenge the BJP in this group of states, it may need to resolve a few issues. One issue is the absence of broad-based opposition unity in Uttar Pradesh. More generally, the issue is whether the opposition will be unite to challenge the BJP in all of these states. These issues may well determine the results of the elections.

States where non-INDIA parties face the BJP

The states where non-INDIA parties face the BJP are the southern state of Andhra Pradesh and the eastern state of Odisha.

In Andhra Pradesh, the alliance of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and the Jana Sena Party (JSP) with the BJP has resurrected the NDA. The parties have a seat-sharing agreement for the upcoming elections.

This alliance faces the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) which is heading the government in Andhra Pradesh. INDIA is the third coalition, which has a seat-sharing agreement. The principal issues in the state revolve around livelihood and the resource crunch confronting the state after the bifurcation of united Andhra Pradesh into Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

In Odisha, there was a serious possibility of electoral unity between the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) (the party in government in the state) and the BJP (that is the principal opposition party in the state). However, this did not due to lack of agreement on seat-sharing. The INC is the third alternative in the state.

The BJP may try to weaponize the advancing age of beloved Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik (of the BJD) to further its prospects in the state. The INC can only confront this effort by re-centering the political debate in the state around livelihood issues.

The YSRCP, TDP and BJD may unexpectedly reorient themselves after the elections in the case of a close outcome where neither the BJP nor INDIA achieves a clear majority.

A myriad of regional dynamics, strategic alliances and ideological battles will shape ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s 2024 elections. The formation of INDIA marked a significant attempt by opposition parties to consolidate their collective voter bases in order to challenge the BJP, which won two supermajorities in 2014 and 2019. If the opposition is able to function as a unit, deftly navigate state specific political issues and present a substantial ideological and policy challenge to the BJP, it has a solid chance of success.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post The Indian Opposition Now Faces Modi State by State appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Other commentators reject the terms of this debate. They argue that it oversimplifies a complex issue and stokes imaginary regional differences. The issue at hand is the delicate balance between states. ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s significant diversity traces its roots to prehistoric times. Genetic research that modern Indians came from at least four waves of migration into the subcontinent. This has resulted in persisting genetic differences between people from different parts or communities of the country. For example, some researchers have that people from lower castes have lower Central Asian and European genetic ancestry than those from higher castes. Similarly, the Dravidian-speaking populations of South India show noticeable genetic differences from the Indo-European-speaking populations of North India. Only in recent times has there been some exchange of vocabulary and grammar.

As deep-rooted as they may be, these differences are only ancillary to the project of the modern Indian republic. Forged in the collective resistance to British colonialism and the millennia of deep cultural exchange that preceded it, the country’s unity is enshrined in its constitution’s first words, ā€œWe, the people of India.ā€

Today, any recent Hindi-language superhit movie has drawn inspiration from the Southā€™s regional cinema, and vice-versa. Athletes from various parts of the country powered ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s history-making medal tally in the recent Asian games. The national government seeks to further solidify this convergence through policy initiatives like a unified tax system and large, centralized welfare schemes.

Regional differences are growing

These successes of national integration should not lull even the staunchest ā€œunionistsā€ into a false sense of complacency. Underlying the modern Indian republic is a fundamental and growing chasm between its different regions. The differences between Indian states on many socio-economic parameters are more significant than between countries in other parts of the world. The South Indian state Keralaā€™s infant mortality rate is within of that of the US. In contrast, the North Indian state of Madhya Pradeshā€™s rate is closer to the rates of war-torn and violence-ridden Afghanistan and Niger.

Economic disparities between regions are not unique to India. In the UK, if one excludes London, the country has a lower than Mississippi, the poorest state in the US. However, India is unique in one aspect. In other countries like the UK and the US, the economically more robust regions are also more populous. These regions subsidize the poorer, less populous parts of the country. In India, the poorer North is far more populous than the richer South, and this asymmetry is growing. In a democratic system based on the ā€œone person, one voteā€ principle, the richer southern states are thus losing political power.

South Indian state Karnataka contributes 2.12 rupees to for each rupee it receives from New Delhi. In contrast, the North Indian state of Uttar Pradesh ā€” ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s most populous province ā€” contributes only 0.56 rupees to the national treasury for each rupee it receives. Clearly, South Indian states subsidize their North Indian counterparts.

In 2026, the long-pending delimitation of parliamentary constituencies is due. When that happens, the South Indian state Karnataka will likely 7% of its seats in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s parliament, whereas Uttar Pradesh will gain 14%. Other South Indian states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh will lose out in the 2026 delimitation as well. Even as South India subsidizes North India, this more prosperous part of the country is losing political power.

Political preferences are exacerbating regional differences

The growing dichotomy between economic and political power poses a significant threat to the stability of the Indian Union. After all, citizens from South India have already begun asking whether their diminishing clout at the national level is fair. The reason South ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s population growth has slowed down is that southern states have implemented better female literacy and family-planning initiatives since independence in 1947. These states feel they are being penalized instead of rewarded for succeeding in their developmental goals. 

Despite its recent growth in Karnataka, only of members of the legislative assembly (MLAs) in South Indian states belong to the BJP. In contrast, the figure for the INC is 27% while 64% of the MLAs belong to regional parties. 

Not only South India, but also some eastern states, like Odisha and West Bengal, and even northern states like Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, and Uttarakhand will lose national political power in the 2026 delimitation. The BJP represents only 15% of MLAs in the ā€œlosingā€ states. This new delimitation will benefit the BJP while hurting the INC and ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s regional parties.

The BJP dominates the ā€œgainingā€ states, which include Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Haryana, Gujarat, Delhi and Chhattisgarh. In these states, 56% of the MLAs belong to the BJP. Except for Delhi, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s saffron party rules all of these states.

This growing crisis of Southern representation is already clear in Parliament. Fewer than 10% of BJPā€™s MPs in the Lok Sabha are from the five southern states. Note that South Indian MPs comprise nearly of the Lok Sabha. This number tells us that South India is suffering a double whammy. Not only are southern states losing their parliamentary clout in the coming delimitation, but they are also not adequately represented in the BJP government. The BJPā€™s support comes mainly from North India. Therefore, its incentive is to bestow financial largesse to the Hindi heartland states, which have fueled the partyā€™s rise to power and will become even more important after the 2026 delimitation.

Some solutions to the North-South problem

It is entirely plausible that this looming Northā€“South crisis may not come to pass. States in North India and South India might converge faster economically and demographically than expected. This would reduce the divergence between their political preferences. Or the national government of today and tomorrow might not covertly or overtly favor the states from which it draws power. Yet India can ill afford to leave the future stability of its political structure to these uncertain factors. Instead, structural solutions that prevent the build-up of political friction within the country are the need of the hour.

One solution is diminishing the overwhelming dominance of the national government by changing its country’s fiscal structure. Today, about of the tax revenue goes to the national government in New Delhi even though it accounts for approximately one-third of the national expense. Instead, states must retain more of the tax revenue they generate. Then, they will feel less of a sense of injustice from the central government allocating tax revenues to different states

These reforms will bring financial decision-making to a lower level of government, where each voter has a more significant say than when voting for a national government far away in the national capital. Such financial devolution is likely to improve social outcomes because state governments are structurally more responsive to voter preferences.

Our founders were not complacent about national integration at independence. Partition accompanied independence in 1947. ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s diversity raised fears of disintegration and the founders opted for a strong national government. Initially, this government chose socialism, slowing down the economy because of the license-permit-quota raj. Liberalization in 1991 unleashed economic growth, and now India needs a competitive federalism that can unleash the next wave of growth. Greater fiscal power for state governments will defuse the tensions between the North and South over the 2026 delimitation, boost growth, and increase national integration.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post India’s South Has Wealth, but the North Has the Numbers appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Itā€™s a match made in heaven (or do we mean hell?) because the two nations have similar ā€œproblemsā€ theyā€™re trying to ā€œsolve.ā€ Israel has long been engaged in the violent suppression of Palestinians whose lands they occupy (including the current devastation of Gaza, an assault that 34 UN experts have a ā€œgenocide in the makingā€). Meanwhile, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s Hindu nationalist government continues the harsh oppression of its minorities: Muslims, Christians, Dalits and indigenous people.

About the time Zionist settlers were beginning their occupation of Palestine in the early 1920s, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, a right-wing Indian politician, fashioned the ideology of Hindutva (ā€œHindu-nessā€). Today, right-wing Hindu nationalists employ Hindutva and physical violence to further its of India as a nation for Hindus and Hindus only. Similarly, Zionism historic Palestine as a land for Jews and Jews only. These parallel visions, along with the two governmentsā€™ increasingly authoritarian tendencies and ready use of violence, have drawn them into a dark alliance the consequences of which are unpredictable.

India makes new friends

The Republic of India and the State of Israel were born nine months apart in 1947 and 1948, each the offspring of partition. The British-ruled Indian subcontinent was split into Muslim-majority Pakistan and Hindu-majority India, while Israel was carved out of a portion of the British Mandate for Palestine.

Throughout the Cold War, India was a leader of what came to be known as the nonaligned movement ā€” formerly colonized nations that sought to develop independently of both American and Soviet influence. In the 1980s, it also became the first non-Arab nation to recognize the state of Palestine. A similar recognition of Israel didnā€™t come until 1992, around the time India was shifting away from its nonaligned social-democratic stance toward its current adherence to neoliberalism.

In recent decades, India and Israel have established strong trading relationships, especially in the military sphere. In fact, given the massive militarization of its borders with China and Pakistan and its suppression of occupied Kashmir and its people, India has become the of weapons and surveillance equipment from Israel. In 2014, the Hindu-supremacist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won power and its leader, Narendra Modi, became prime minister. In the process, India and Israel grew ever closer.

By 2016, as The Washington Post , ā€œafter Indian commandos carried out a raid inside Pakistan-controlled Kashmir in response to an attack by militants on an Indian army post, Modi trumpeted the action, saying: ā€˜Earlier, we used to hear of Israel having done something like this. But the country has seen that the Indian army is no less than anyone else.ā€™ā€

Today, the Israeli weapons/robotics firm Elbit Systems has even established a drone factory in India and now has a $300 million to supply drones to ā€œa country in Asia,ā€ most likely India. Meanwhile, Modi and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have established a mutual-admiration society, dubbed by the media of both countries the ā€œModiā€“Bibi bromance.ā€ And New Delhi has all but abandoned the Palestinians.

Economic alliances

When, on October 27, the UN General Assembly passed a calling for an ā€œimmediate, durable, and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilitiesā€ in Gaza, only the US, Israel and a handful of small nations voted ā€œno.ā€ India abstained. (Apparently, the Modiā€“Bibi bromance wasnā€™t quite enough to sustain a ā€œnoā€ vote.) Modi, however, immediately responded to the measureā€™s passage by his ā€œsolidarityā€ with Israel.

Economic, political and diplomatic relations between New Delhi, Tel Aviv and Washington (all , by the way) had been strengthening even before the current conflict. Last year, for instance, India, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and the United States formed the ā€œā€ to attract corporate investment for their mutual benefit. Projects now underway include ā€œfood parks across Indiaā€ with ā€œclimate-smart technologiesā€ and a ā€œunique space-based tool for policymakers, institutions and entrepreneursā€ (whatever in ā€” or out of ā€” the world ā€œfood parksā€ and ā€œspace-based toolsā€ might be).

Then, in September, the G20 summit of the group of 20 major nations, meeting in New Delhi, approved an India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor which, to Voice of America, would ā€œestablish a rail and shipping network linking the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Jordan to the Israeli port of Haifa on the Mediterranean Sea.ā€ And guess who now that very port? A company led by Gautam Adani, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s richest person and (naturally!) a Modi buddy. Foreign Policy , ā€œIt is also palatable for the Middle East to have India as a major energy market to diversify its exports and offset Chinese influence over critical commodities such as oil and gas.ā€

But not surprisingly, the war in Gaza has thrown plans for such a new Indian-oriented economic corridor through the Middle East into .

High-, medium- and low-tech warfare

Militarily, the conflicts in occupied Palestine and occupied Kashmir are both lopsided mismatches. In each, a powerful nation-state is assaulting resource-poor populations, though the scale of slaughter, displacement, immiseration and death wrought by the Indian regime doesnā€™t faintly approach whatā€™s currently being done by Israel in the Gaza Strip ā€” at least not yet. While the cases have similarities, magnitude isnā€™t one of them.

In Gaza, you have the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), a massive high-tech killing machine financed in large part by the worldā€™s richest nation, facing off against Palestinian resistance groups, including the Qassam Brigade, whose most effective are homemade Yassin antitank grenades and whose defenses largely consist of a network of fortified tunnels. Instead of engaging in face-to-face subterranean combat with the Qassam fighters ā€” something that could turn out badly indeed for the IDF ā€” the Israelis have been carrying out an industrial-scale bombardment of densely populated areas. As of December 20, the result was approximately civilians killed (including more than 8,000 children) and the displacement of people, over four-fifths of Gazaā€™s population.

In India, the Hindu nationalistsā€™ onslaught against non-Hindu minorities has not been carried out by the Indian Army itself, but by a paramilitary organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), in partnership with the BJP. That unofficial army, founded almost a century ago and modeled on Italian fascist Benito Mussoliniā€™s ā€œblackshirtsā€ and Adolph Hitlerā€™s Nazi stormtroopers, has a membership of five to six million and holds daily meetings in more than 36,000 different locales across India. Its shock troops rarely even carry firearms; their weapons are low-tech, crude and exceptionally cruel, and their targets are unarmed, unsuspecting civilians. They using batons, machetes, strangulation, sulfuric acid to the face and rape, among other horrors.

Such attacks by Hindu nationalist gangs, different as they are from the military assault on Gaza, do have parallels in the occupied West Bank. There, Israeli settlers, some carrying government-supplied small arms, through parts of that area (where they live illegally), beating, torturing and killing Palestinians, including ethnic Bedouin families. They have expelled people from their homes, stolen their money and possessions, including livestock and destroyed houses and schools. It is now olive harvest season and Jewish settlers have Palestinians in their olive groves, sometimes forcing them off their ancestorsā€™ land, perhaps permanently. More than Palestinians have been killed this way since October.

Common language

One of the worst atrocities perpetrated against Muslims since ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s partition occurred in 2002 in the western state of Gujarat. (Not coincidentally, that stateā€™s chief minister at the time was Narendra Modi.) Following the alleged torching of a train compartment in which 58 Hindu nationalist ā€œvolunteersā€ were traveling, Hindu mobs inflicted state-sponsored terrorism on the Muslim community across Gujarat. More than 2,000 Muslims were killed. Speaking in the aftermath of that horror, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee offered a perfunctory admission of regret for the carnage, only to rhetorically, ā€œLekin aag lagayi kisne?ā€ (ā€œBut who lit the fire?ā€) The implication was that, since some from their community were accused of committing the initial crime, all Gujarat Muslims were responsible and that that, however regrettably, justified their slaughter.

Similar allegations of collective guilt and justifications for collective punishment have a long history in Israel, as in the current conflict. In October, Israeli President Isaac Herzog claimed that ā€œthere is an entire nation out there that is responsible.ā€ That comment earned Herzog a place in a greatest-hits of Israeli leaders attempting to defend atrocities inflicted on Gazaā€™s 2.3 million inhabitants. Similarly, a former Israeli ambassador to the UN Sky News, ā€œI am very puzzled by the constant concern which the world ā€¦ is showing for the Palestinian people, and is actually showing for these horrible inhuman animals.ā€

Within mere hours of the October 7 attack in Israel, BJP and Hindu nationalists in India were spreading on social media, including that Palestinians were ā€œworse than animalsā€ and were cutting from wombs, children and taking girls as ā€œ.ā€ This started in India before IDF spokespeople began spreading similar claims.

An unnatural disaster

Drawing a comparison to the ethnic cleansing of 1948, the Israeli agriculture minister, a member of the security cabinet, recently his governmentā€™s goal to a reporter this way: ā€œWe are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba.ā€ (Nakba was a reference to Israelā€™s forcible expulsion of 800,000 Palestinians from large portions of their territory in 1948.) When the incredulous reporter tossed the minister a lifeline, asking if he really meant what heā€™d said, he doubled down: ā€œGaza Nakba 2023. Thatā€™s how itā€™ll end.ā€

As of now, it certainly looks that way. The IDF bombed apartment blocks, shelters, schools and hospitals in northern Gaza to force the migration of the population there toward supposedly ā€œsafeā€ south Gaza. Large groups of other Gazans were forced to make the long journey south on foot through narrow IDF-designated corridors. As The Guardian in mid-November,

Those walking south under the tense gaze of Israeli troops, through a hellscape of tangled rubble that had been buildings two months ago, along roads shattered by weapons and churned to mud by tanks, had little hope of rest when they reached the south. Shelters are crammed, food and water supplies are so low the UN has warned that Palestinians face the ā€œimmediate possibilityā€ of starvation, infectious diseases are spreading and the war there is expected to intensify in coming days.

Israel soon began bombing parts of South Gaza, too, clearly trying to drive the refugees further south, possibly even through the Rafah gate into Egypt. But Egypt has refused to participate in such an ethnic-cleansing campaign. So, figuratively speaking, millions of desperate Palestinians have their backs to the wall, or in this case, fence, with nowhere to run.

As economic and geopolitical ties among Israel, India and the US have only continued to strengthen, Joe Biden has chummed it up with both Netanyahu and Modi, averting his eyes from their antidemocratic and all-too-violent national visions. He has backed the assault on Gaza all the way and as late as November 18 was still in The Washington Post against a ceasefire. At the same time, he called for increasing the flow of humanitarian assistance to Gaza to remedy critical staggering shortages of food, water, housing and fuel. In other words, the Biden administration is treating the catastrophe there like a natural disaster, acting as if thereā€™s something terrible happening, something beyond his (or anyoneā€™s) power to prevent, so all that can be done is to aid the survivors.

In truth, administrations in Washington have been treating Israelā€™s occupation and immiseration of the West Bank and Gaza like a natural disaster for more than half a century now. Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the , recently an incident that suggests just how disingenuous that claim is. In November, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant came under withering criticism for permitting a few small, wholly inadequate truckloads of humanitarian aid to enter Gaza from Egypt. As Theoharis noted, Gallant defended his decision to allow the aid this way: ā€œThe Americans insisted, and we are not in a place where we can refuse them. We rely on them for planes and military equipment. What are we supposed to do? Tell them no?ā€

This puts the lie to the idea that Washington has no influence over the progress or outcome of this war. It does have influence over Israel ā€” more than $3 billion worth in the form of military aid provided by Washington every year, not to speak of the the Biden administration still wants to reward Israel with.

As we write this, we donā€™t know what will happen to the people of Gaza as the war develops. But rest assured that the governments of India and Israel will continue to feed off each other as they develop new strategies, tactics and propaganda for their respective campaigns of occupation and oppression, campaigns the US government, through both action and inaction, is endorsing. Consider them now three nations under god(s) of hell.

[ first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post What Happens When Nationalists in Israel and India Team Up appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

It turned out that elements close to the top of the Indian government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi were aware of my arrival and had decided to ā€œinviteā€ me on a tour. Eventually, they told me that they were dissatisfied with the image the American media presented of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The Modi people wanted to show me ā€œwhat India is really like,ā€ and what the BJP government was seeking to accomplish.

They insisted that they were not intolerant, much less the fascistic, anti-Muslim nationalists some observers were describing them to be. Those were the biased criticisms of the anglicized, socialistic English-speaking Congress party elites with whom foreign journalists interact. For three weeks, they took me all over western and northern India and gave me better entrĆ©e to the corridors of power than most senior diplomats could ever hope to obtain. They showed me how ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s power elites, both BJP and Congress party supporters, see India, as well as what the Modi government wants for the country. 

±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s national self-image is changing

For a thousand years, India was ruled by Muslims, like the Mughals, and later by the British. Hindus were powerless subjects. But Modiā€™s BJP government sees India as a Hindu nation. This is the concept of Hindutva, a view of Indian society and government, first enunciated during ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s struggles for independence against the British, which has guided the BJP since 1989.

Hindutva considers the Hindu religion as the basis of Indian culture and society. This is a powerful nationalistic break from the millennium of colonial subjugation and from the first sixty years of Indian independence, in which India embraced a secular, civic nationalist identity.

The Congress-party opponents of the BJP consider this concept of Indian society and government to be a dangerous betrayal of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s multicultural, tolerant and socialist post-colonial democracy. A majority of Hindus seem to feel empowered by Hindutva, however. Modi and the BJP consistently win substantial support at the polls and in , and Modiā€™s reelection in 2024 seems likely.

Hindutva strikes me as a powerful resurgence of national pride, but nationalism also can foster dangerous intolerance. Human Rights Watch that there has been an increase in protests against alleged government human rights violations since Modiā€™s election and that government use of violence to suppress dissent has also increased. The BJP dismisses such criticisms: ā€œThe BJP is at least as democratic as the corrupt and totalitarian Congress party and the Gandhis,ā€ I was told repeatedly by BJP supporters. 

FOĀ° Talks: Rank Hypocrisy: Do Global Rankings Misrepresent India?

India is a rising world power

One sees evidence of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s economic dynamism everywhere. Partially finished new highways and skyscrapers loom overhead even as cows continue to sit placidly in the middle of major roads. Most educated Indians see themselves as citizens of a nascent world power. I was told repeatedly that ā€œover 250 millionā€ Indians have risen from extreme poverty in recent years, the BJP supporters intimating that this was due to Modiā€™s economic liberalism and industrial policies. The United Nations Development Programme presents a more nuanced picture, showing a decline in poverty that, while indeed impressive, began long before the BJP came to power. 

Many Indians do feel that ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s bureaucratic sclerosis continues to slow economic development. Yet the World Bank now India 63rd in its 2023 ā€œEase of Doing Businessā€ report, up from 140th in 2014. When I was there, I sensed a country defining itself more by a burgeoning world-class economy than by timeless squalor, pre-modern stasis and colonial bureaucracy.

An Indian Entrepreneur Talks Growth, Regulation and Corruption

Much of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s media expresses a simplistic, jingoistic nationalism due to pressure from the BJP according to government critics. Old ways of thought die hard, too: I heard many statements about how Russia remained a ā€œtrustworthy friendā€ and that the US was predatory and had sided with Pakistan for over sixty years.

These are vestigial echoes of a defensive, postcolonial, anti-Western, Congress-party-led India. The power elites with whom I met proudly highlighted ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s growing confidence as a global power. India is involving itself in the geopolitics of the and the , to set global standards for semiconductor chips, a world-class space program and its arms purchases as it develops its own arms production industry. 

Many of the foreign policy experts with whom I spoke now consider ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s top strategic priority to be counterbalancing China. ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s leadership in the ā€œGlobal Southā€ or the non-aligned movements, participation in the BRICS organization (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and increasing involvement in Indo-Pacific military maneuvers and in US-centric organizations such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue all seek to strengthen India as a nascent, independent global peer to the US, China and Russia, but above all they seek to counterbalance China. This is why Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar of India as a ā€œsouth-western powerā€ ā€” part of the Global South ā€” but with ā€œvery strong bondingā€ to the West and to Western norms.

India has long sought a seat as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The UN is nearly unreformable, though, and as a result, the worldā€™s powers will slowly create alternative arrangements to address some of the problems of global governance. The G7 grouping of the worldā€™s richest democracies has taken on increased strategic importance following Russiaā€™s invasion of Ukraine. One can thus expect India to pursue, and probably achieve, G7 membership, making a ā€œG8.ā€

The death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar signals new audaciousness from a rising India

Nothing shows more strikingly ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s new bold and assertive attitude than the recent incident that occurred between New Delhi and Ottowa over the death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar.

Nijjar, a Canadian citizen, had been active in Sikh separatist politics. He organized an among Sikhs resident in Canada on the independence from India of a new Sikh ā€œcountryā€ named Khalistan. In June, Nijjar was in British Columbia. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau the killing had been an assassination, planned by India.

FOĀ° Exclusive: Indoā€“Canadian Tensions Signal New Indian Assertiveness on Global Stage

India, of course, denies having assassinated Nijjar, but for years has him as a ā€œterrorist.ā€ India him of conspiring to organize a terrorist attack in 2018. India says that Trudeau has made his accusation in order to curry domestic political favor among Canadaā€™s large Sikh population. It is likely, however, that Canada is telling the truth, given the diplomatic costs to Canadaā€™s international standing of making spurious allegations about assassination and Trudeauā€™s explicit references to ā€œcredible allegationsā€ collected by Canadaā€™s intelligence agencies. The countries mutually expelled diplomat to show their anger. Relations between Canada and India have never been worse. 

More significant than the tensions between India and Canada, however, is what the assassination says about the ā€œstrongerā€ India of Prime Minister Modi and about the Indian intelligence serviceā€™s apparently more aggressive role in ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s foreign policies.

ā€œThey need to understand that this is not the same India,ā€ Vineet Joshi, a senior BJP official. India now, he asserted, ā€œis much stronger under the leadership of Prime Minister Modi.ā€

±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s foreign intelligence organization is the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). Its mission is the same as those of the American CIA, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, or Britainā€™s MI6: to collect foreign intelligence on countries of strategic interest. But the RAW, like these other organizations, also conducts ā€œcovert actions.ā€ Traditionally, the RAW has carried out covert operations against targets, including Sikh terrorists, within or near Indian territory. These operations are reputed to have included assassinations, but Nijjarā€™s assassination would be the that the RAW is believed to have committed in a Western nation.

States often believe that covert actions offer them solutions to otherwise intractable problems. They believe that there will be no political cost because the actions are ā€œcovert.ā€ The reality, however, is that most covert actions are eventually traced to the service that conducts them. When they become publicly known, they cause significant unintended negative consequences ā€” just as we are observing with ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s likely assassination of Nijjar. 

It is too early to know whether the ā€œbenefitsā€ of the RAWā€™s assassination of Nijjar ā€” eliminating an individual threatening ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s political integrity ā€” outweigh the damage to Indiaā€“Canada relations, to ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s standing and influence in the world and the possible increased hostility of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s long-disgruntled Sikh population in consequence. Nijjarā€™s death, however, surely signals that India sees itself as ā€œstrongerā€ and freer to pursue its objectives unilaterally than at any time since Indian independence in 1947.

The event illustrates how India is now flexing the sometimes-obtuse muscles of a superpower. It also reveals a significant global expansion of the RAWā€™s covert actions, transgressing international and democratic norms in pursuit of what India considers vital national interests.

A newer, bolder India moves into the future

I never so much as glimpsed the Himalayas during my three weeks in India. Instead, I saw an India that will soon be the worldā€™s third-largest economy, that is proud to now be the fourth nation to land on the Moon and that is playing a progressively large and confident role in international affairs. I saw an India that seeks influence in the ā€œGlobal Southā€ and closer relations with the West to counterbalance China. I saw an India that is struggling to overcome its colonial and socialist bureaucratic legacy and historical hostility to the West. I saw an India that, as it recently demonstrated, is ready to pursue its perceived national interests globally in spite of the costs.

It seemed to me that the BJP, in its efforts to free India of the harmful effects of a thousand years of foreign domination and three generations of socialist torpor and crony leadership, risks alienating its non-Hindu populations and sliding into intolerant majoritarian rule and a strong-man system of government. We will have to see.

[ first published a version of this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post India Is Growing Confident in Its New Role as a Powerful Nation appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Nepal is a landlocked nation. It depends on oil imports, the of which comes from India. At the same time, its high mountains and swift rivers make it a potential . So, energy is a key foreign relations priority. With global supply chains disturbed by recent events such as the war in Ukraine, Nepal will have to maintain good relations with both of its large neighbors, China and India.

Nepal between two economic powers

Prachandaā€™s visit to India in June deepened the two nationsā€™ energy relationship. India is a big energy customer, and this means it has a lot of influence on Nepalā€™s energy industry. ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s Prime Minister Narendra Modi broadcasted this influence by a strategic blueprint to augment power imports from Nepal to India. He set the formidable target of 10,000 megawatt-hours over the next decade. That number had previously been only 450 megawatt-hours.

Energy is just part of the story. India is far and away Nepalā€™s largest economic partner. buys 80% of Nepalā€™s exports and provides 61% of its imports. And the trade relationship between the neighbors is growing fast.

By contrast, China provides 15% of Nepalā€™s imports, and exports from Nepal to China amounted to in 2022.  China has increased its involvement in the Nepali economy in recent years, serving as a in Nepal’s infrastructure development. China has Nepal access to some of its ports so that the landlocked country will no longer have to rely on others to conduct global trade. Additionally, both nations embarked on an ambitious project to establish a linking Kathmandu with Tibet.

For Nepal, the challenge will be to avoid taking sides and instead to promote a multilateral solution that will benefit all parties involved.

What is in store for Nepal and China?

Prachanda’s visit signifies not only bilateral cooperation but also Nepal’s aspiration to become a regional energy hub. Nepal and have just made an energy export agreement, and Prachanda will likely negotiate an export agreement with as well during this visit. China is the worldā€™s largest , and that industry consumes a gargantuan amount of electricity. Nepal is an obvious choice as a partner for China.

With its eyes set on bolstering national dignity, unity, and mutual interests, Nepal forges ahead with a clear understanding of its foreign policy goals: regional balance, multilateral solutions and sustainable development.

Cooperation, not competition

In a world that continuously experiences shifts in alliances and geopolitical currents, it is important to respect each country’s sovereign right to engage with others based on its distinct circumstances. Such engagements should be appreciated as means of fostering bilateral ties, cultural exchanges and economic collaborations, without hastily attributing them to grander geopolitical designs.

In conclusion, while the international community may observe these diplomatic interactions with inquisitiveness, it’s prudent not to overinterpret their significance. Nepal, like every nation, has its own unique priorities to pursue, but it seeks to do so in a way that is beneficial for everyone in the region. By doing so, Nepal can promote prosperity while defusing, rather than adding to, regional disputes and tensions.

[ and edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Nepalā€™s Prime Minister Visits China to Talk Trade and Energy appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Indeed, the G20 summit in New Delhi carries significant diplomatic importance for India. It offers a prime opportunity for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar to showcase India’s role on the global stage. Welcoming delegates from a multitude of member nations, including prominent figures like US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, presents a substantial diplomatic undertaking for India. The absence of leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping cannot go unnoticed, and it will be intriguing to observe the outcomes and agreements that emerge from this pivotal summit.

The of Xi is particularly noteworthy. Chinese Premier Li Qiang will instead attend the event. The snub is telling, given that India is one of Chinaā€™s greatest regional rivals. Perhaps China is having trouble grappling with India’s economic and recent achievements in space exploration, including a historic on the moon’s South Pole. Xiā€™s decision could also spring from a desire to strengthen China’s role in the newly-expanded BRICS forum, where he appeared more comfortable during a recent summit. Or Xi may have been kept home to address China’s economic challenges, notably the precarious which saw one of the nation’s largest property developers on the verge of default.

Xi’s absence raises questions about China’s diplomatic strategy and global posture. It suggests a reluctance to engage in an event where he might face difficult inquiries regarding China’s economic trajectory, military activities concerning Taiwan and support for Russia following its invasion of Ukraine. This decision also adds to concerns among investors about the increasing unpredictability of China’s policies, with US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo that abrupt shifts in Chinese policy have made the nation appear nearly ā€œuninvestable.ā€

India is a nation committed to democracy and multilateralism, and its presidency will be a significant milestone as it seeks to find practical global solutions for the benefit of all and embody the idea of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.

Will ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s G20 presidency leave an imprint on the forumā€™s global agenda? New Delhi is highly optimistic of a declaration with ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s clear stamp on it. India wants the G20 to be a group for the global public good and not just an economic cooperation body. Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam literally means ā€œthe world is a family,ā€ and not just the human world, but the environment from plants and animals down to microorganisms. 

India’s priorities at the G20

In more concrete terms, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s at the summit are six:

The report takes a multidimensional approach to poverty. Since national governments use vastly different definitions of poverty, a multidimensional approach is necessary to assess poverty in an accurate and objective way. This captures information that might be obscured or skewed by a one-dimensional analysis, such as an analysis of income. The report takes the following ten dimensions of poverty into account: nutrition, child mortality, years of schooling, school attendance, cooking fuel, sanitation, drinking water, electricity, housing and personal assets.

It is worth noting that, since the UNDP did not collect data from every country in the study at the same time, it is not possible to directly compare countries within a single year. The study is more useful for assessing trends within countries over time. This goes especially for India, for which we have three periods of available data. The report details India from 2005ā€“2006, 2015ā€“2016 and 2019ā€“2021.

±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s impressive poverty reduction

In the period from 2005ā€“2006, 55.1% of the Indian populationā€”or some 645 million peopleā€”were suffering from multidimensional poverty. A decade later, this figure had dropped to 27.7% percentā€”370 million peopleā€”in 2015ā€“2016 after 10 years. In other words, the rate of decrease in the percentage of poverty was 5.4% per year on average.

By the period of 2019ā€“2021, the proportion of people suffering from poverty had declined further to only 16.4% of the total population, or 230 million people. In just five years, 140 million people moved out of poverty. This means that the pace of poverty reduction had accelerated to a whopping 9.1% per year. Stunningly, India achieved this record in spite of the Covid pandemic. Although full post-Covid data are not available for nearly any countries in the report, more than one year of the worst pandemic in India is included in the period covered.

From 2005ā€“2006 to 2019ā€“2021, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s multidimensional poverty index (out of a total of 1.000) plummeted from 0.283 down to just 0.069. The report also includes scores for each of the ten dimensions of poverty considered by the study. The proportion of people without adequate sanitation dropped impressively from 50.4% to 11.3%, and the proportion of those without adequate drinking water plummeted from 16.4% down to just 2.7%. Deprivation in terms of school attendance dropped from 19.8% down to only 3.9%. Conditions in India are dramatically improving. Not only the frequency, but the intensity of poverty is substantially lower than it was 15 years ago.

This is good news for India, and the country can justifiably feel proud of its achievement. But it is also an important lesson for the world. ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s efforts to alleviate multidimensional poverty can be a model and inspiration for the world.

Narendra Modiā€™s Indian model

Narendra Modiā€™s government has had a special focus on the determinants of multidimensional poverty.

According to UNICEF, the in India has come down to just 30.6 per 1000 live births as of 2021, down from 46.2 in 2014. This is living proof of better health for Indian children. There has also been a huge improvement in nutrition, with deprivation of nutrition coming down from 21.1% in 2015ā€“2016 to only 11.8% in 2019ā€“2021, according to the UNDP report. To turn to housing, we can note that about , both in urban and rural areas, have been built so far in the last 8 years under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana program thanks to 5 trillion rupees ($60 billion) in assistance from the central government.

Har Ghar Nal Se Jal (ā€œPiped Water to All Homesā€), another ambitious scheme of the Modi government, has worked swiftly, cutting the number of those without access to water by more than half from 2015ā€“2016 to 2019ā€“2021, according to the report. 110 million latrines and 223,000 restroom complexes have been constructed in the . Under the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana program, impoverished women have received liquified petroleum gas (LPG) connections. The total number LPG connections has doubled in the last 9 years to .

Various efforts of the government in the context of hunger and nutrition are also bearing fruit. Due to a free grain ration for people that will continue throughout 2023, all Indians, in principle, will have access to food. Electricity, too, has reached even the remotest villages in the country. According to the UNDP report, indeed, 97.9% of Indians had access to electricity during the 2019ā€“2021 period. That number will continue to get closer and closer to 100%. Already, Modi says, there is village in the country that is without electricity.

This is a lesson for the world. Multidimensional poverty can also be removed if the political will and the necessary effort are there.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post The World Should Learn From Poverty Alleviation in India appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Current drawbacks of adoption laws in India

Without the UCC, there are currently different adoption laws for different religious communities. There are a number of drawbacks, including:

ā€” Lack of uniformity in the rights of adopted children. The rights of
adopted children vary depending on the religious community.
Under Hindu law, an adopted child is considered to be the
natural child of the adoptive parents. Under Islamic law, an
adopted child is not considered to be equivalent to a natural
child of the adoptive parents.

ā€” Discrimination. The different laws governing adoption can also
lead to discrimination against certain groups of people, such as
single people, same-sex couples and interfaith couples. This can
make it more difficult for these groups of people to adopt a
child.

ā€” Lack of clarity. The different laws governing adoption can be
complex and confusing. This can make it difficult for people to
understand their rights and responsibilities as adoptive parents or
children. For example, in Rajwinder Kaur & Anr v. Central
Adoption Resource Agency (CARA), the Delhi High Court ruled
that if a child is adopted in accordance with Hindu Adoption
and Maintenance Act (HAMA) rules, it is not necessary to use
the rules of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, to ensure that the
adoption is legal. Without assistance from anybody else, without
acknowledgment from CARA or any governmental authority,
an adoption carried out in accordance with the conditions
outlined in HAMA would be valid.

ā€” Difficulties in transferring parental rights. The process of
transferring parental rights from the biological parents to the
adoptive parents can be complex and time-consuming. This can
be especially difficult for children who are orphaned or
abandoned. 

ā€” Unreasonable delays. Tens of thousands of childless people
approved by CARA are to adopt, more than half of
them for over three years. True, there are fewer children
available for adoption in recent years, but administrative delays
must also take a good share of the blame. While law-abiding
prospective parents await their children, a black market for
children . Just over a month ago, West Bengal witnessed
the of a couple that sold their 8-month-old son for
the price of an iPhone. 

ā€” Inconsistency in eligibility requirements. The eligibility
requirements for adoption vary depending on the religious
community. This can make it difficult for prospective parents to
navigate the adoption process and can also lead to disparities in
the treatment of adopted children. For example, under Hindu
law, a married woman cannot adopt a child, while under Islamic
law, only a man can adopt a child.

This last issue has been partly remedied by case law, namely Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India. Hashmi, a Muslim woman, adopted a child, which Muslim law does not allow. She filed a petition for recognition of the right to adopt, regardless of religion. The Supreme Court held that the Juvenile Justice Act gave her the right to do so and noted that the act aims at achieving the purpose of a UCC.

While Hashmi provides a precedent for the right to adopt, it needs to be codified in a more general law.

How can the UCC help?

The UCC would help to overcome these problems by providing a single, uniform set of adoption laws for all citizens of India. This would make adoption law both more fair and more effective.

The UCC would ensure that all children have the same opportunities to be adopted and that all competent adults have the same rights to adopt. It would reduce discrimination against single people, same-sex couples and interfaith couples. It would make it easier for prospective parents to adopt children from other religions.

Once adoption had been completed, the UCC would ensure that all adoptive parents and children have the same rights and responsibilities. The rights of adopted children would be clearer and more consistent, regardless of their religious affiliation. This would give adopted children greater certainty about their legal status and their rights to inherit property and other assets. It would also make it easier for adoptive parents to obtain financial assistance for their children.

In addition to making adoption more fair, the UCC would also streamline the process for everyone. By using the same procedure for everyone, adoption would be simpler and faster, making it easier for adoptive parents to bring children into their families. The UCC would simplify the process of transferring parental rights and make it easier for adopted children to inherit property and other assets. By providing clarity and certainty for adoptive parents and children, the UCC would make it easier for them to access the legal system.

Finally, the UCC would help to increase social acceptance of adoption. It would help to reduce the stigma associated with it, making adopted children equal to their peers. This would make it easier for adoptive parents to raise their children in a supportive environment.

The way forward is not without its obstacles. There is opposition to the idea of a uniform code, particularly from religious and tribal groups. However, the potential benefits for adoptive parents and children outweigh the challenges. Ensuring that all children have the opportunity to grow up in a loving and stable home is something worth fighting for.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Why the UCC Is Important for Adoption in India appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

D. K. Shivakumar has begrudgingly taken the second post of the deputy chief minister. It remains to be seen if he will continue to stand on the sideline, as tells us that chief ministers usually have a hard time completing their terms in this state. In the 66 years of its modern political history, Karnataka has seen only four instances of chief ministers completing their terms. The last one, though, was Siddaramaiah himself.

A brief history

The roots of this anomaly lie in the 20th-century movement that led to the formation of the state. This movement aimed to bring together , uniting the territory of the former Mysore Kingdom with parts of Hyderabad and Bombay states, along with the districts of Ballari, Dakshina Kannada and Kodagu. These regions shared a common language, Kannada.Ā 

Despite the unification of the state into a single administrative entity, politics in Karnataka remained highly regionalized. This resulted in a system with a weak state capital. Regional strongmen held considerable sway over policy, often demanding plum posts for their supporters. Winning in Karnataka means effectively winning six different elections, each with its own unique characteristics. To have a chance at forming a government without a coalition, a political party must perform exceptionally well in at least three regions and achieve above-average results in at least two others.

In Karnatakaā€™s 66 years of existence, the INC has been the dominant political force, governing the state for approximately 50 years. As in any other Indian election, caste plays in determining electoral outcomes. Before the unification of Karnataka, the Vokkaligas, a landholding community, held considerable sway within the INC party of Mysore state. Concerned about potentially relinquishing power to the numerically superior Lingayats, a dominant Shaivite caste in the northern regions that were to be added to the state, several Vokkaliga leaders voiced their opposition to the unification of Kannada speakers. Vokkaliga fears were not unfounded. After unification, Lingayats swiftly captured power within the INC and also took the coveted post of the chief minister.Ā  They continued to dominate the INC until the late 1980s.

The turning point came when Prime Minister Rajeev Gandhi unceremoniously Chief Minister Veerendra Patil in a press conference over his handling of a communal riot. This 1990 ā€œhumiliationā€ of a son of the soil by a national leader prompted the entire Lingayat community to align itself with the then-nascent Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) under B. S. Yediyurappa, a loyalty that has endured ever since.

Meanwhile, the capture of the INC by the Lingayat community had created the need for a strong Vokkaliga leader who could unite them into a formidable force. H. D. Devegowda and his party Janata Dal (JD), quickly filled this void. The JD rose rapidly thanks to the support of the Vokkaliga community. This resurgence led to the Vokkaligas reclaiming the post of chief minister after nearly four decades, and, to their delight, even the post of prime minister, albeit for only a year from 1996ā€“1997. In 1999, the party split and Devegowdaā€™s faction became the Janata Dal (Secular), or JD(S).

Twenty years ago, H. D. Kumaraswamy, the son of Devegowda, took over the reins from his father. Since entering politics in 2003, Kumaraswamy has served as chief minister twice.

With these two dominant castes fighting for power, a third alternative emerged in the form of ā€œAhindaā€ā€”an alliance between religious minorities, backward castes and Dalits. The alliance masterminded by former chief minister Devraj Urs has found its torchbearer in Siddaramaiah today. These are the three corners of the triangular fight that has dominated Karnataka politics for the past three decades.

The Lingayat blunder

The previous assembly elections in 2018 had returned a , with the BJP as the single largest party. However, the INC and JD(S) managed to an alliance with H. D. Kumaraswamy as chief minister.

A year into the government, discontent grew and 12 legislators belonging to both coalition partners defected to the BJP and with Yediyurappa at the helm. He was a leader of great stature, with a massive following in the state. Since 1990, this Lingayat leader had toiled to build up the BJP in Karnataka, the partyā€™s only home in the South. However, Yediyurappaā€™s independent style of working often clashed with the ever-centralizing impulse of BJP high command.

When the conflict between the state and national parties reached a deadlock, Yediyurappa after Home Minister Amit Shah and the central BJP leadership used a clause in the BJP charter that mandated compulsory retirement at 75 to force the senior statesman out of office. Cognizant that the sentiments of Yediyurappaā€™s community would be hurt, the BJP tried to placate it by appointing Basavraj Bommai, another Lingayat, as the chief minister for the remainder of the term. But the damage was done. Bommai was a political lightweight who could never fit into Yediyurappaā€™s shoes.

Adding insult to injury, the BJP also decided to endorse the former chief minister and Lingayat leader Jagadish Shettar, a six-time elected member of Karnatakaā€™s legislative assembly, and the former deputy chief minister Laxman Savadi a month before the elections. Unfortunately for the BJP, both leaders left the party and , claiming that the BJP was anti-Lingayat. Their supporters followed en masse, further adding credibility to their claims that ā€œBJP is anti-Lingayat.ā€ Even though Shettar lost in the polls, his joining the INC worked in the partyā€™s favor. It swept the Hyderabad and Mumbai Karnataka regions with a majority of Lingayat votes.

Hindutva vs. Kannada pride

After the leadership change, the BJP thought it could offset potential losses on Lingayat votes by building a pan-religious identity of Hindutva. The party focused on national Hindu identity to win support. While the ravaged the infrastructure of the state capital Bengaluru, the Karnataka government busied itself making a fuss about and the of halal products. This aggressive push was spearheaded by C. T. Ravi, a rising star in the state party. However, this imported northern version of Hindutva failed to resonate with the people of Karnataka. While Hindutva politics can be seen as an acceptable side dish, it cannot serve as the main course in Karnataka. Unsurprisingly, Ravi lost his seat, and the BJP drew a blank in his district, Chikmagalur.

Hindutva has a natural tendency to homogenize people under a broad blanket of Hinduism and Hindi. In South India, language forms a fundamental part of identity and Hindi is still resented as an imposition by North Indian leaders.  In Karnataka, the BJP was seen as neglecting the interests of the Kannada language and cozying up to New Delhiā€™s edicts, heightening concerns about the erosion of local autonomy. Moreover, the non-payment of goods and services taxes owed to the state and the promotion of Gujarat’s Amul dairy cooperative over the local Nandini brand contributed to this narrative of the neglect of Karnataka.

Administrative Failure

Furthermore, the BJP had many failures on the administrative front. The Karnataka State Contractors Association (KSCA) that ministers were demanding illegal cuts as high as 40% of the project budget, making it unfeasible for KSCA members to operate. The INC, under the guidance of their consultant , who worked formerly for McKinsey & Company, latched on to this and launched a campaign: ā€œā€ (40% Government). The campaign prominently featured posters with the phrase ā€œPay CM,ā€ cleverly playing a pun on ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s popular payment network ā€œPaytm,ā€Ā  with an accompanying QR code to ā€œpay bribes.ā€ Kanugoluā€™s campaign was a hit on social media, tilting the narrative battle towards the INC.

The BJP faced the polls with a sinking ship and an unreliable captain. The best they were hoping for was a hung assembly. When the were out, they could only hold on to their bastions in the capital Bengaluru and in coastal Karnataka. As many as 11 ministers lost their seats and the party drew a blank in eight districts. Their only silver lining was the BJP vote share remained unchanged at ~36%.

Meanwhile, the INC increased its vote share by a decisive ~5%, going up from 38% to 43%. This came at the cost of Kumaraswamyā€™s JD(S) whose vote share fell from 18.3% to 13.3%. The INCā€™s remarkable victory in the Old Mysore region can be attributed to Vokkaligas uniting behind the state INC chief Shivakumar who is now the second-in-command. He missed out on the chief ministerial positions because Jawaharlal Nehruā€™s great-grandson Rahul Gandhi favored Siddaramaiah once again. This overlooking of Shivakumar might have consequences. It remains to be seen if Vokkaliga support for the INC will extend to the crucial upcoming national elections next year.

What Next?

The 2023 Karnataka election victory was a hard-fought one for the INC. They needed the organizational skills of Shivakumar as well as the personal charisma of Siddaramaiah to win. The two leaders realized that they depended on each other. Hence, they buried their differences and fought the elections unitedly. Now that victory is theirs, their rivalry is back and the gloves are off. Therefore, we have good reason to believe that the governmentā€™s reign might not be frictionless.

Gandhi is banking on the Shivakumar-Siddaramaiah duo to deliver a major chunk of seats in the all-important national elections next May. In the 2019 national elections, the Congress managed to win out of the 28 seats in Karnataka. However, 2024 might turn out differently. The BJP has been completely decimated in Karnataka and is in soul-searching mode. The state BJP lacks a strong leader who can deliver the only potential set of seats in South India to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Yet it is important to remember that the people of Karnataka possess a commendable level of political maturity. In the past, they have often made distinctions between state and national issues, voting for different parties in state and national elections. Time will tell if the Congress can successfully capitalize on its 2023 victory or whether the BJP will make a comeback.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Caste and Party: A Volatile Mix in Karnataka appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Professor Salvatore Babones is a man on a mission. He wants to restore ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s place in the global democratic rankings.

ā€œIā€™m not Indian, Iā€™m not Hindu, Iā€™m not getting any money for this,ā€ says the American academic, currently based in Australia. ā€œItā€™s simply a matter of justice.ā€

In this interview with 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s Claire Price, Babones outlines how and why he disagrees with the global rankings drawn up by , the and the , all of which have downgraded India under Modiā€™s premiership.

Claire Price: Last year, you became quite a hero in India after you criticized the democracy indices by Freedom House, the V-Dem Institute and the Economist Intelligence Unit. Weā€™ll go through all of those in detail, but first, can you give us a general overview of your arguments? 

Salvatore Babones: There are three major democracy indices; they range from the most objective, the Rise of Democracy Institute rankings and Freedom House, to the most subjective, the Economist rankings. Ironically, itā€™s the most subjective rankings that rate India the best, which we should get into. The most objective, the V-Dem rankings, rate it the worst, but these rankings are very much driven by politics and by peopleā€™s own political views. 

Claire Price: Swedenā€™s Freedom Institute was bad for India last year, but frankly itā€™s even worse this year. India has plummeted in the Electoral Democracy Index from 93rd to 108th in the world. So thatā€™s below countries like Tanzania, Bolivia, Mexico, Singapore and Nigeria. Whatā€™s your issue with their methodology? 

Salvatore Babones: There are very serious problems with V-Demā€™s methodology. V-Dem is composed of five sub-indices of democracy; two are supposedly objective and three are subjective. The objective indicators are whether or not you have elections and whether or not you have universal suffrage. Virtually every country in the world gets a perfect score for those, including Vietnam, for example, which has a single-party communist party state. They get a perfect score because theyā€™re purely looking at the constitution. So if the constitution says that officials are elected and if the constitution says that everyone can vote, then right away you get a perfect score. That means countries that are not democracies at all are starting with the same perfect score.

With a country like India, which is a bona fide democracy, the differentiation in V-Dem comes from its more subjective indicators. Weā€™re asking experts to evaluate things that donā€™t necessarily have much to do with democracy. So for example, on free and fair elections, Hong Kong is rated to have freer and fairer elections than India. Why? Because when you look at the actual questions on V-Dem, the questions are things like, is there any violence at the polls? Well, yes, in India, every year thereā€™s violence. At the polls in Hong Kong, no, itā€™s an orderly state. Are there any complaints to the electoral commission? In Hong Kong, no. Why would you complain? Itā€™s a communist-party-run area. We have these same problems in Vietnam; Vietnam is really on a par with India for free and fair elections despite the fact that thereā€™s only one party in Vietnam. What matters is that the formal process in Vietnam goes off without a hitch.

Now what we should be asking is, can you realistically unseat the government? Can you oppose the government? Could someone else win an election? Those are really what democracy is about. Those questions arenā€™t even in V-Dem. So, in effect, India is being downgraded for questions about process when autocratic regimes are scoring better. 

Claire Price: There are also some conclusions in their reports. For example, that India is one of the top ten autocratizing countries in the world. Isnā€™t it true that we are seeing this centralization of power under Modi to a greater extent now than we ever have in the past? 

Salvatore Babones: No, look, this is an artifact of what we call the ā€œcharisma of statistics.ā€ V-Dem has set a series of score points on its indices. If youā€™re below this score, youā€™re an autocracy. Theyā€™re not doing a deep evaluation of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s governance standards, theyā€™re simply asking if your score is below, say, 0.6. If youā€™re below this point you become an autocracy. So theyā€™re simply saying that ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s score on V-Dem has declined. Now theyā€™re interpreting that in words without doing any actual analysis of governance procedures in India.

Claire Price: Some members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, which is aligned to the Bharatiya Janata Party, have said that the Indian Administrative Service has too much power now. So isnā€™t that criticism coming from those who are in theory aligned with the government? 

Salvatore Babones: Thereā€™s a legitimate debate all around the world of presidential versus cabinet systems, of consensus government versus winner-take-all systems. We see that debate not just in India, but in lots of other countries as well. But that debate is not in the V-Dem rankings. There are no questions in V-Dem, as far as Iā€™m aware, that ask, ā€œIs government consensual?ā€ or ā€œIs government centralized?ā€ because we accept that centralized and consensual systems are both forms of democracy. So yes, there may be these complaints in India.

On the other hand, other people may complain that the administration in India is inefficient and too decentralized. I mean, there are various points of view on whether administration should be centralized or decentralized, but thatā€™s not something unique to India, and I stress that it is not the reason for the declining ranking on V-Dem. The declining ranking on V-Dem is driven entirely by declining scores on specific questions asked of Indian political scientists. And those scores, I think, in some cases are probably biased. That is, the people theyā€™re asking have a bias against the current government. They see the Electoral Commission as being less independent because Modi won.  And to some extent, those questions are simply methodologically poorly constructed. Is a free and fair election really one in which the electoral roll is complete and thereā€™s no violence in the polls? Or is a free and fair election one in which you can oppose the government? V-Dem says the former, I think the latter is a much more intuitive understanding. 

±Ź°ł¾±³¦±š:ĢżThere are complaints by those in India that thereā€™s been a centralization of power, not just at the prime ministerial level but also at the state level, with Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal and M. K. Stalin in Tamil Nadu. Isnā€™t that a trend that people can see, not just something thatā€™s been twisted in the statistics?Ā 

Babones: Well, I think there is a trend in India towards more centralized government, but I donā€™t see that thatā€™s in any way anti-democratic; democracy theory really says nothing on this and I donā€™t see that itā€™s necessarily even bad. India is a poor, developing country with a lack of administrative talent, and when things get brought into the Prime Ministerā€™s office, they get done. When things are left to the broader bureaucracy, they often donā€™t get done, so itā€™s a recipe for making sure that promises made by politicians actually get enacted. Now I know many people will feel that their ideal of democracy is a decentralized democracy where everything is localā€”until their local authority makes a decision that they think is reprehensible or against human rights, and then they want things to come from above.Ā 

Price:Ā One word we havenā€™t mentioned so far is corruption. Transparency International actually ranks India 85th in the world for corruption. It says that the country schools remain stagnant, so it hasnā€™t worsened, but some of the mechanisms that could help rein in corruption are weakening. Do you dispute that finding?Ā 

Babones:Ā India is relatively clean from the standpoint of a developing country. Itā€™s number 85th in the world despite being much poorer than 85th in the world, but it is relatively corrupt compared to Western Europe or North American countries. Thatā€™s just a fact. Corruption is not worsening by any account, and by most accountsā€”this is anecdotal, I canā€™t vouch for these in any kind of data-driven wayā€”the Modi government has made anti-corruption a serious effort. The one thing we do know where corruption has been dramatically reduced is in the most important areaā€”not licensing for 5G telecom or defense procurementā€”but in the most important thing of all, service delivery to the poor.

We know that moving to direct benefit transfers, which has been a key policy achievement of the Modi government, has cut out all the middlemen who were previously taking part of the cash that was supposed to be going to poor people. Poor people now receive their full benefits instead of having to face corruption at every stage. So thatā€™s a big win against corruption.

What is the true level of corruption in India? I canā€™t tell you. Surveys canā€™t tell you. Transparency International almost entirely surveys large businesses. So theyā€™re big business perceptions of corruption. We donā€™t even have any proper indices of ordinary peopleā€™s perceptions of corruption. We donā€™t know how corrupt India is. If I had to guess, Iā€™d say theyā€™re doing a good job for a country with $2,200 GDP per capita. 

Price:Ā So, lack of data might explain, for example, why The Economist relies so much on experts for its findings. They, in 2022, described India as a flawed democracy and downgraded it two places to the 53rd position. Whatā€™s your view on their rankings?Ā 

Babones:Ā Flawed democracy, quote unquote. ā€œPartly free,ā€ to use the Freedom House terminology. I remind people, thatā€™s not a value judgment. Thatā€™s a score judgment. If you fall below a certain score on your index, they have a range that is ā€œdemocracy,ā€ a range that is ā€œflawed, democracy,ā€ a range that is ā€œnon-democracy.ā€ Same thing with Freedom Houseā€”a range that is ā€œfree,ā€ a range that is ā€œpartly free,ā€ a range that is ā€œunfree.ā€ Thatā€™s not a judgment that itā€™s suddenly become flawed, where it wasnā€™t flawed before. All democracies are flawed democracies. The Economist has now downgraded India for the last few years. Thatā€™s the opinion of their editorial team that ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s democracy is no longer as good as it was, but I strongly suspect that that opinion is shaped by the press coverage they see coming out of India, by the NGO reports they see coming out of India; itā€™s not driven by a deep expertise on India.

I remind everyone, The Economist is not ranking India. The Economist is ranking 170 countries. Freedom House, the same thing. V-Dem, the same thing. These are not India rankings. These are broad global rankings. The Economist, of all three of these, has the least country expertise embedded in its rankings. Ironically, it produces the best ranking for India. V-Dem, which relies almost solely, 85%, they say, on in-country experts, rates India the worst. So, use a grain of salt, take it whatever way you want, but itā€™s certainly not very meaningful to say that India has gone from being ā€œfreeā€ to ā€œpartly freeā€ or from being a ā€œfull democracyā€ to ā€œflawed democracy.ā€ All that represents is a declining score on their index.

Price: Now letā€™s look at the Freedom House report because that focuses particularly on rights. Freedom House downgraded India from ā€œfreeā€ to ā€œpartially freeā€ in 2022, and it maintains that view this year. It said in its report that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Hindu nationalist BJP have presided over discriminatory policies and a rise in persecution affecting the Muslim population. Are they wrong?Ā 

Babones:Ā Oh, I think they are wrong. I think we have some good data that theyā€™re wrong. They are picking up on a number of policies that have been portrayed by NGOs as being anti-Muslim or being transgressions of rights. In fact, if you look at them carefully, itā€™s an NGO interpretation that is being spun from those policies.

The most clear example is the Citizenship Amendment Act, which is cited by Freedom House in its report. The CAA is an act that gives a pathway to citizenship for people who are members of persecuted religious minorities fleeing Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. These are officially Sharia-law, officially Muslim countries that have historically persecuted people of other religions. Now what the CAA says is that if youā€™re a Muslim refugee from Afghanistan, you are not automatically granted refugee status. You have to apply. If youā€™re Sikh, if youā€™re Hindu, because of your religion, you are considered a legitimate refugee. If youā€™re Muslim, you have to show persecution.

Now, I think thatā€™s an unnecessarily strict construction of refugee status. I think there could have been more leeway in it. For example, Ahmadi Muslims are persecuted in Pakistan, even though Pakistan is an officially Muslim country. Allowing anyone whoā€™s persecuted on behalf of religion would have probably been a more generous and better-drafted way to write the law. But instead of saying anyoneā€™s personal on the basis of religion, the law actually lists a series of religions. Thatā€™s poor drafting, itā€™s not a perfect law, but itā€™s a very liberal law. 

Price: I think thatā€™s one aspect, but if you look at what Human Rights Watch for example is saying about India, they talk about summary punishments. They talk about shops and homes being demolished, excessive force, public floggings. So these are actual things happening to Muslims in India. Weā€™re not just talking about whether they accept Muslims from neighboring countries.Ā 

Babones: These things have occurred as incidents in India, and they have been investigated and theyā€™re subject to litigation in India. Thatā€™s the key point. We all respect New Zealand, we all think itā€™s a wonderful democracy and itā€™s rated in the top five of all the major democracy rankings. Well, if I told you that the largest mass killing of Muslims in the last five years occurred in New Zealand. ā€œOh, are you serious? More Muslims have been killed in terrorist attacks in New Zealand than in India in the last five years?ā€ Oh, thatā€™s right, the 2019 Christchurch massacre. We forget about it because we think itā€™s a good country. Now, if 200 Muslims have been killed in a terrorist attack in India for being Muslim, we would never hear the end of it because we have a preconception that India is anti-Muslim.

With New Zealand, we trust that the perpetrators are going to be tracked down, that these are going to be redressed and there is going to be, and there was, a national outpouring of sympathy for the community that was attacked. And really, thatā€™s what we should be looking for in India. We can ask if any police person in India has ever transgressed the rights of Muslims. And the answer is yes. As the answer is yes, in England, in the United States, in New Zealand, in every country in the world. The question is what happens to the person who does it? So for example, you mentioned the case of the whipping of the Muslim man who was tied to a post and whipped by police; those police officers were promptly arrested. Now I donā€™t know the exact progress of the case, but they were arrested. They were dismissed; theyā€™re facing legal action.

And thatā€™s what we really need to look to. I mean, India is a country that has a GDP per capita on par with sub-Saharan Africa. We shouldnā€™t be expecting that India have a level of education and civility that is similar to a well-settled country with 30 times its GDP per capita. So the question for India is not, ā€œDo things happen that are wrong?ā€ They happen in New Zealand, they happen in the UK. These things happen everywhere. The question is, ā€œIn a robust, well-institutionalized democracy, does the machinery of government respond appropriately?ā€ And I think in India the answer is largely, and I stress ā€œlargely,ā€ yes. 

Price:Ā Tell me why you think these rankings matter.

Babones:Ā They matter for many reasons. First, they matter because they matter for international affairs. Narendra Modi just visited the United States. There is a willingness in the United States to work with India because of the perception that it is a growing economy and an important country, but the American establishment is, in effect, holding its nose when it works with India. All of the statements, theyā€™re all along the lines of, ā€œWell, we know India has problems, but we want to work with them anyway,ā€ instead of saying, ā€œActually, these accounts of problems in India are wildly exaggerated.ā€ We saw Barack Obama recently in a very controversial interview in which he said that India had to address these problems, or it might soon face a second partition. Now this affects how the United States works with India, whether it works with India as a true partner or simply as a customer, someone who might buy defense equipment. It affects how much India pays for its international bonds, right?

Price:Ā So there are real-world effects?Ā 

Babones:Ā Bonds are all benchmarked to the sovereign bond rate, and the sovereign bond rate for India is partly benchmarked to government standards. Those government standards in large part come from the V-Dem survey, which then enter into the World Bank and United States Agency for International Development governance standards. So there are indirect but real effects. Thereā€™s just also the matter of simple justice. I mean, Iā€™m an academic. Iā€™m not a spokesperson for India.Ā 

Price:Ā You say youā€™re not a spokesperson for India, but you make no secret of your support for India on Twitter. Youā€™re wearing a ā€œMake India Great Againā€ hat and youā€™re raising money for an Indian think tank.Ā 

Babones:Ā Look, any think tank has to raise money and thatā€™s just a fact of life. Any reporting organization has to earn money. We have to earn money to do things. Now that money is not going to me, I must stress everything Iā€™ve done for the Indian Century Roundtable has been pro bono. My ā€œMake India Great Againā€ hat is a joke. Iā€™m very much a humorist on Twitter, and in fact I write a humor column for an Australian journal. But that is not in my academic writing.Ā 

±Ź°ł¾±³¦±š:ĢżAre you worried about your perceived objectivity? You met Modi, for example, last month and you exchanged some comments on Twitter, which showed you were very proud to have met him.Ā 

Babones: Well, of course I am. I think thatā€™s a perfectly normal human being to do. Look, I am not an arbiter. Iā€™m not a judge. Iā€™m not a journalist. Iā€™m a person and an academic whoā€™s writing what he believes, and I also have a personal life. Now, if I had a responsibility to defend India, I would probably be much more guarded about things I say personally on Twitter. I am not the guardian of India. Iā€™m not the defender of India. Iā€™m an academic who has a viewpoint. You can take my viewpoint or leave it. But the point is what Iā€™m bringing to the table is factual data about India.

We havenā€™t got into any of those facts today in this interview. I can give you lots of survey data about India. I can give you lots of factual data about India. Now, whether or not people like me or like what hat I wear, the factual data are the factual data. And I get people, almost always, coming back with ad hominem attacks. If I write something that is exculpatory about Narendra Modiā€™s India, someone will say ā€œOh, heā€™s a Trump supporter.ā€ Well, first of all, whether or not I am a Trump supporter (and Iā€™ve never taken any public position on that) is irrelevant about whether the facts about India are true or not. I mean, the data on journalist deaths are the same data whatever you think of me personally. The data we have on attitudes of Muslims in India, that is Muslims’ self-reported experiences of discrimination in India are the same. Iā€™d like to talk about the data, not so much about myself. 

Price:Ā Tell us more about what your think tank is aiming to achieve.

Babones:Ā Well, the Indian Century Roundtable is something Iā€™ve tried to get started up in Australia. I should stress itā€™s an Australian think tank and our goal is to present a factual narrative about India. Our launch report was a report about the V-Dem rankings, and again, itā€™s not a report that just complains that the V-Dem rankings are unfair to India. Itā€™s a technical analysis of V-Dem. My own background is as a social statistician. I teach our statistics curriculum at the University of Sydney, and my major academic work is about methods for quantitative macro-comparative research, which is a book about statistics used for international comparison. So this is exactly my own area of academic expertise.

Weā€™re also looking to commission papers on other controversial issues in India, just to try to get a factual account. When I commission those papers, we go to experts that have knowledge on the subject. Weā€™re not trying to give a policy recommendation for India. Instead, weā€™re simply trying to get a factual account of India.

Our next paper will be on the national identification number system. Right now if you go for information in the West, all you can get is either glorifying articles from the business press about how wonderful it is that everyone has a bank account or condemnatory articles from the NGO press saying that this is a system for cataloging people to prime them for repression. Well, we put together a factual account. ā€œHow does the system actually work?ā€

Weā€™re commissioning a paper on the collegiate system for appointing judges. India has a very distinctive system. The closest parallel is Israel, pre-Netanyahu reforms, for appointing judges. Judges essentially appoint themselves in ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s judiciary. Well, does that ensure judicial independence, or is that a recipe for nepotism? Weā€™ve commissioned a report from a senior barrister, an Australian barrister, to just take an objective look at the system.

I have no position on these things. Iā€™m not Indian. Iā€™m not Hindu. Iā€™m not getting any money from this. Iā€™m doing this because Iā€™m looking at the data and saying the data are completely at odds with the narrative. Then when you get deeper into the narrative, we see highly political people who are pushing the narrative. Then reporters, and forgive me, itā€™s not nice to criticize the fourth estate, but reporters instead of going to the data, just repeat, via quote, ā€œThis NGO person said this, this NGO person said that,ā€ without asking \hard questions of them. Wait a minute, why are you saying that? Is that true?

The simple thing that I keep going back to, is the Committee to Protect Journalists, which tells everyone that journalists are in danger in India because more journalists are killed in India over time than in any other country outside China. You think, ā€œOh, thatā€™s terrible.ā€ Well, no reporter, as far as I could tell, has ever asked the Committee to Protect Journalists if they have adjusted for population size. It doesnā€™t take a social statistician, who writes books on statistics, to just ask that simple question. Yes, more people have black hair in India than in India than any country outside of China. Tell me what the stats are. Iā€™d like to see the fourth estate not only holding me to accountā€”Iā€™m happy with thatā€”but holding NGOs to account, holding politicians to account, going to the data. Thatā€™s what the Indian Century Roundtable is all about. Itā€™s all about going to the data.

Price: Thank you so much, Professor. I think weā€™ll have to leave it there.

51³Ō¹Ļ is a platform for citizen journalism with over two and a half thousand contributors from over 90 different countries. And we would love you to join the conversation. So if todayā€™s discussion has prompted any thoughts, do get in touch. You can follow us on social media, you can write for us and you can sign up for our weekly newsletter. Thanks very much.

Thank you.

Babones: Thank you.

The views expressed in this article/video are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post FOĀ° Talks: Rank Hypocrisy: Do Global Rankings Misrepresent India? appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

The site reminded me of my visits to the in Berlin. The gate was built during Germanyā€™s imperial era. At the time, the iconic Quadriga, a bronze sculpture of Victory riding in her chariot at the top of the gate, symbolized triumph. The Brandenburg Gate was destroyed and renovated several times throughout the course of time, most recently in 2002. Today, the Quadriga represents German unity and peace. Many global leaders have given addresses at the Brandenburg Gate, hailing it as a symbol of democracy.

We admired the German approach of infusing national traditions with democratic ideas. It is relatable to us, as Indians, since it is very much similar to the Indian way of immersing our way of life in traditions. In many cases, the Western world has amalgamated monarchical traditions with liberal democratic legacies. These emblems consecrate the conviction that the march to the future must not be at the expense of the countryā€™s culture and heritage.

India inaugurated a this year. This calls us to ponder the relationship between the new and the old in our country, which as a state is very young, yet harbors a millennia-old civilization. What do we value? Where are we going?

It is relevant to discuss these issues as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits France. France has invited Modi as the guest of honor at the Bastille Day Parade. Bastille Day, Franceā€™s national holiday, is celebrated on July 14. It represents the victory of the people against the rule of King Louis XVI.

A section of the French strategic community has suggested that it is a to invite Modi for the Bastille Day celebration. They have emphasized a missing link of common values between the French and Indian administrations. They stress that the Modi administration is keen to turn India into a Hindu nation.

France is a revolutionary nation. Its national day celebrates the overthrow of the old order and the creation of something untested and new. Even the of France has been facing the heat in the last few weeks. Indians, on the other hand, seek a more organic relationship between their democracy and their history. For a keen observer, the episode provides an insight into the workings of Indian political and social life.

Symbiotic bond of traditions with modern times

There is a dynamic character to Indian civilization. This dynamism has been manifested in Indian cultureā€™s peculiar lifestyle decisions and philosophical perspectives on human existence and its problems.

The finest instances of these are to be found in the history of the drafting of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s Constitution. On July 22, 1947, the first Prime Minister Pandit Nehru to adopt the Ashoka Chakra symbol on ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s national flag. The symbol represents the wheel of Dharma, the principle of order and law. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, who would later serve as ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s second president, endorsed the adoption. In his beautiful speech, he synthesized the notion of progress with loyalty to ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s spiritual tradition:

We cannot attain purity, we cannot gain our goal of truth, unless we walk in the path of virtue. The Asoka’s wheel represents to us the wheel of the Law, the wheel of Dharma. Truth can be gained only by the pursuit of the path of Dharma, by the practice of virtue. Truthā€”Satya, Dharmaā€”Virtue, these ought to be the controlling principles of all those who work under this Flag. It also tells us that the Dharma is something which is perpetually moving. If this country has suffered in the recent past, it is due to our resistance to change. There are ever so many challenges hurled at us and if we have not got the courage and the strength to move along with the times, we will be left behind.

The deliberations in the Constituent Assembly created a space for the harmonization of the countryā€™s deep-rooted cultural traditions and symbols with modern-day, progressive advances. It hailed the possibilities of combining ancient wisdom with modern advancement.

The new parliament building has a larger seating capacity than the older building, and the voting process now uses a graphical interface and biometrics. As a ā€œPlatinum-rated Green Building,ā€ the new edifice demonstrates India’s commitment to environmental sustainability. The Constitutional Hall’s gallery area houses another remarkable installation called ā€œFoucault’s Pendulum,ā€ adding to the distinctive features of the new Parliament.

The for the chamber of the Lok Sabha, or lower house, was inspired by the peacock, the country’s symbol. In the Mahabharata, one of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s national epics, Bhishma Pitamah argues that a king should adopt forms like the plumes of peacocks in a variety of colors. For the upper house, the Rajya Sabha, the theme is ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s floral emblem, the lotus. The original document of the Indian constitutionā€™s preamble also has motifs of lotus and peacock. The installation of the Sengol scepter, a powerful religious symbol, in the new parliament building unquestionably signaled the amalgamation of Dharma with democratic norms. 

What to make of Sengol?

As a Maharashtrian, I am familiar with scepters. In front of the Speaker or Chairperson’s seat in the legislative assembly and council of Maharashtra, there is a designated spot for the rajdand, a scepter. Union Home Minister Amit Shah revealed Sengol and reintroduced it into the national discourse. Sengol was by the Modi government close to the Lok Sabha Speakerā€™s chair. The act suggests that sovereignty rests with the people of India.

The new Sengol is not a symbol of royal authority or insignia of military victory. Instead, it serves as a metaphor for the, i.e., Dharma. The installation of Sengol in Parliament is a sign that the government is not unquestionable, that real power rests with the people in a democracy. It implies that a person or organization in possession of the Sengol is only a servant guided by the highest law, Dharma. Sengol alludes to a of power.

The transfer of power is comparable, metaphorically speaking, to the change from day to night. Indeed, a seamless and effective democracy is marked by a smooth handover of power. Sengol encourages the beholder to follow the path of righteousness by being devoted to it throughout the journey, just like the Sun does. Sengol reflects a subtle shift, and re-introducing native ideals that support democracy. This is part of the creation of a democratic vocabulary for Atmanirbhar Bharat, ā€œSelf-reliant India.ā€

Is India becoming a Hindu state?

The reintroduction of Sengol has drawn criticism from certain quarters who saw the move as anti-democratic. They held the view that new symbolism is akin to monarchy and that India under the Modi regime is abandoning the modern principles it espoused during the Nehru era. Supporters of the move, on the other hand, dispute these claims. Both parties have strong reasons on their sides. Real life, of course, can be somewhere in the middle.

Nehruvian intellectuals have faith in Western modernity and the secular world. Their story predominated for most of the period following independence. They look at tradition with contempt. For them, the installation of Sengol and the process of are comparable to the creation of Hindu Rashtra, a theocratic state. They believe Modi is changing the national narrative to emphasize regressive views rather than progressive ones.

In Germany, the monarchical icon of Brandenburg Gate is celebrated today as a democratic achievement. Similarly, Sengol, a scepter of righteousness, may aid in honoring the past and upholding the values of the rising India.  Nehru recognized the importance of Indian traditions. At the same time, he was an interlocutor of the European notion of modernity. He was mindful of maintaining a balance between Indian traditions and European modernity. His followers may have failed to understand these intricacies, blindly following what they see as Nehruā€™s ideals.

Modi appears to be questioning the universality of Western modernity and making Indian wisdom and knowledge relevant to the rest of the globeā€”consequently, making India a decolonial state. Modi is suggesting that the ideals of modernity and socialism succeeded in Europe because they were shaped by local circumstances. Modi wishes to construct Indian modernity within the context of the country’s history.  The Sengol installation underlines the narrative that Modi is regaining the self-identity of India in Amrit Kaal, the upcoming quarter-century golden age foreseen by Modi. along with modern advancements. Thus, modernity and traditions are not diametrically opposed; they coexist together.

Modi seems to be challenging the binary of choices. The Indian populace had two options during the last three-quarters of a century post-independence: the temple of development, which was focused on contemporary concepts, or the temple of tradition, which dabbled in rituals and caused barriers to advancement. Modi indicates that he is holding Sengol in one hand and progress, development and technology in the other hand. Modi is not a utopian that repudiates the West. Modi does not dream of an ideal Hindu state as like you might hear about from a right-wing foot soldier on social media. He wants India to interact and cooperate with the West and other stakeholders as a self-assured and confident nation.

Thus, it is better for anyone, including the French and other Western strategic communities, to understand Indian politics and social life before arriving at any conclusion regarding values. Two narratives are having a dialogue with each other and playing for space in the public imagination. The dialogue is like the noise produced when a train is changing tracks; it is perfectly in accord with the noisy and messy democracy of India. The outcome of the Indian General Elections in 2024 will help us to answer which narrative may win.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Tradition And Modernity: Shifting Gears in the Indian Discourse appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, India changed course. Over time, it has moved closer to the US. Recently, the winds of change have been blowing harder. The US and India might not be allies but they are behaving as strategic partners. The US has authorized the sale to India of high-tech jet engines, something it has never done before. American and Indian entrepreneurs and engineers are working closely together to develop new semiconductor and software technologies. The countries have settled six outstanding trade disputes they had held at the World Trade Organization. Things are looking bright.

President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Narendra Modi have summed this all up very visibly with the latterā€™s state visit to the United States. The meeting is more than a symbolic expression of goodwill. The pomp and circumstance represent a real change in Indo-US relations. 

As tensions with China have increased, the US has come to see India as a natural ally. However, India has sought to keep its distance from the capitalist superpower. Having endured the scarring experience of colonization at the hands of the British, Indians were in no mood to let another English-speaking global empire tell them how to direct their foreign policy. 

Therefore, Nehru started the Non-Aligned Movement and tried to steer clear of becoming a subordinate power of either the US or the Soviet Union. Atul points out that the US further lost Indian trust by conducting the 1953 coup in Iran for a British oil company. Indians perceived this move as highly colonial. This was only made worse when the US supported ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s archrival Pakistan, particularly from the 1960s.

In the 2020s, things are changing. This is not just because the two enormous, ethnically diverse and rambunctious federal democracies have much in common, or even because of Americaā€™s influential Indian minority. More than anything, Glenn explains, India is moving towards the US because of their common fear of a rising and threatening China.

China is now the second most important global power. Its meteoric economic and technological growth has given it tremendous clout. Beijing is also putting pressure on ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s northern borders. Like the US, India wants a free Indo-Pacific region. It does not want the South China Sea to turn into a Chinese lake. Hence, the two imperfect, rambunctious democracies are making common cause against a common threat.

Glenn takes the view that India will not take the backseat in great power conflict any longer. It is no longer the struggling and uncertain ex-colony that it was in those earlier decades. India is now a young, vibrant and assertive society, which is beginning to make its power felt on the world stage. India will not be pushed around by China, and it will make the friends it needs to pursue its national interests. The US is going to be its most important friend.

[ wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post FOĀ° Exclusive: Narendra Modi’s Consequential US Trip appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

The UCC in ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s constitution

Article 44 of the Constitution of India mandates that the state shall establish a ā€œUniform Civil Codeā€ (UCC) for its citizens. This is one of the ā€œDirective Principles of State Policyā€ enshrined as Part IV of the constitution. The constitution expects the government to make efforts to make legislate according to these directive principles, but no time frame is fixed for their implementation. Neither do the courts have the power to implement them or to order the government to do so.

Explainer: What Is the UCC Indians Are Talking About?

There are many other directive principles of state policy that have not yet been fully complied with, such as Article 48 which provides for the protection of cows. Although many state governments have enacted such laws, no cow protection law has yet been enacted by the central government.

Today, while the debate over the UCC is raging all over the country, we need to understand that it is in accordance with the basic concepts of our constitution. In our country, every citizen is equal before the law. But people having different faiths are governed by different personal laws. The majority Hindu society is governed by Hindu personal law, while minority societies (chiefly Muslims) are governed by their respective personal laws. Many of these codes, governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, etc., have been in use for a long time.

The necessity of personal law reform

For a long time, it has been felt that there is a lack of uniformity in society due to different personal laws governing people of different religious faiths. At the same time, due to some historical factors, some of these personal laws are not in the best interest of various sections of their community, such as women and children. This hinders the welfare of the whole society.

For example, for several centuries, the Indian Muslim community has had a very unequal and exploitative divorce system. According to custom, any Muslim man has the right to divorce his wife by uttering the word į¹­a±ōÄå±ē (ā€œdivorceā€) thrice. This could be performed through a letter, over the telephone or even by sending a message on WhatsApp. Muslim women of all age groups are terrified by this system, under which they may have to suddenly move out of the houses of their husbands without warning.

The situation after divorce is even worse; if the husband wishes to re-marry his divorced wife, the only way is nikāįø„ halāla (ā€œmarriage that is made acceptableā€). In this custom, the divorced woman has to marry another man and had to go through the ordeal of consummating and living with her new husband before remarrying her previous husband.

Thanks to the active support of the Central Government and the intervention of the courts, this system has been abolished and this triple į¹­a±ōÄå±ē has been declared illegal. Men repudiating their wives in this way are liable to prison time.

The tragedy of Muslim women has been reduced significantly without an overhaul of Muslim personal law. In spite of this, women in Muslim society, unlike in Hindu society, have not achieved legal equality with men. According to Hindu personal law, women have equal rights in inheritance, but this is not the case for Muslim women. Similarly, Muslim women do not have the same rights as Muslim men do to initiate divorce or to contract marriage.

With the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code, the rights and status of these women will improve significantly. It is worth noting that gender equality is a major goal set forth by global organizations, including the United Nations. If the Uniform Civil Code is implemented, it will be a major step forward in achieving the UNā€™s Sustainable Development Goals.

Due to the inconsistency of personal laws, there is discrimination between people of different religious faiths. For example, Muslim men are allowed to practice polygamy (up to four marriages), which is not the case for Hindu men. After the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code, no one will have the right to engage in a practice that for others is rightly considered illegal and reprehensible.

Though we claim that ours is a secular country, real secularism cannot be achieved until we adopt the UCC. When we do so, we will eliminate discrimination between people of different religious faiths and this will pave the way for secularism in the true sense.

By ending unequal personal law, UCC will also help in reducing disputes between sects. At present, there are innumerable legal disputes between the members of different sects due to different personal laws. With the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code, steps can be taken towards a more peaceful and integrated society.

The challenges are very many

The Uniform Civil Code should have been implemented immediately after independence in accordance with the basic spirit of our republic. But those sitting in the corridors of power, fearing that radical-minded people of some sects may not comply, avoided the issue. This is the reason why fundamentalists became emboldened. Leaders feared that, if the UCC were implemented, law and order in the country would be endangered.

But the country has seen that when triple į¹­a±ōÄå±ē was abolished, it got full support from right-thinking people. Despite the opposition of some fundamentalists, the intelligentsia and society at large applauded the move.

We have failed in such moments before. When, in Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, the Supreme Court decided in favor of giving alimony to Muslim women, the government balked. Under the leadership of Shri Rajiv Gandhi, the Indian National Congress administration overturned that decision by legislation, thus curtailing the rights of Muslim women. In this way, the unequal treatment continued.

Various political parties will also work to foster their own political agenda. Because of the temptation to appease the Muslim minority, they will try their best to create obstacles in the way of implementing the UCC, without any logic. Although Prime Minister Modi is lobbying strongly in favor of the UCC, in the coming days, when the Indian Parliament sits to pass the Uniform Civil Code Act, not only the government, but the whole of society will have to show firmness. We have to understand that the UCC is not just an ordinary law, but a big leap forward for real social and gender equality, secularism, and justice for women in this country.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Uniform Civil Code: The Beginning of a New India appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Modi was invited by President Joe Biden and Dr. Jill Biden for this first Official State Visit to the United States. This was a pivotal moment, as State visits to the US are infrequent. In addition, he addressed the joint session of the US Congress on June 22nd. Modi last addressed the US Congress in June 2016. He is the only Indian leader, and one of very few world leaders, to have been invited to address the US Congress more than once. The last Indian leader to travel to the US for an Official State Visit was Dr. Manmohan Singh in 2009. Singh also addressed the US Congress in 2005.  

Modiā€™s visit and address to the US Congress demonstrate how important the US partnership with India is to Biden. The visit strengthened the commitment of the two countries to a free, open, prosperous, and inclusive Indo-Pacific. This also includes their shared resolve to elevate their strategic technology partnership, including in defense, critical and emerging technologies, clean energy, and space. 

Evolution of the Partnership

President Bill Clinton launched the US-India bilateral partnership on an upward trajectory during his visit to India in March 2000. Succeeding US Presidents have also worked assiduously to grow the partnership at a rapid pace. 

In India, all prime ministers contributed to the expansion of bilateral partnership as well. Modi has been especially pivotal in the growth of India-US relations with his steadfast in the endeavor. Strong bipartisan support exists in both countries for strong relations between the two countries. This has made the India-US partnership the most consequential for India in recent times.

The upward momentum of bilateral relations continued with Bidenā€™s presidential term beginning in January 2021. The warmth, respect and rapport between the two leaders have been palpable during many events over the last few months. These events include the G7 and Quad Summits in Hiroshima, the G20 Summit in Bali, the G7 Summit in Germany, the G20 Summit in Italy and many more. 

Additionally, Bidenā€™s engagement with the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict has not deterred his commitment to the Indo-Pacific. Five summit-level between the leaders of the Quad (Australia, Japan, India, USA) have taken place over the last 25 months. This extraordinary attention to the Quad demonstrates the resolve to strengthen their partnership and effectively push back against Chinaā€™s growing expansionism.

Today there is a convergence of values and interests between India and the US. Some of these emerging areas of interest include; the fight against terrorism, pushing back against Chinaā€™s expansionism, the allure for the US of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s large and expanding domestic market and the presence of a large and influential Indian diaspora in the US.

The US and India have over 60 bilateral dialogue mechanisms. These include platforms for cooperation in renewable energy, climate change, information technology, healthcare, agriculture, cyber security and many others. The US also one of the top three suppliers of defense equipment to India.

India also conducts more defense exercises with the US than with any other partner. One recent example has been the exercises, where the Quad partners promoted interoperability between their navies and strengthened peace and security in the region.

Promising Future Initiatives 

Recent months have also indicated the growth in the bilateral partnership in technology and innovation. The US-India CEO Forum was soft-launched in November 2022. Its key priorities include increasing supply chain resilience, enhancing energy security and reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions. Other goals include advancing inclusive digital trade, and facilitating post-pandemic economic recovery, especially for small businesses.

The Initiative on Critical and Emergent Technologies (iCET) was suggested during the meeting between Modi and Biden at the Quad Summit in Tokyo in May 2022. The intent is to elevate and expand the bilateral strategic technology partnership and defense industrial cooperation. The Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and his US counterpart, Jake Sullivan, the concept in discussions during Dovalā€™s visit to the US in January 2023. The iCET focuses on removing barriers in technology transfers and co-production, particularly in telecommunication and semiconductor chip supply chains.

In another major push for bilateral ties, the two countries announced a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in March 2023 to a Semiconductor Supply Chain and Innovation Partnership.

At the inaugural of the India-US Strategic Trade Dialogue held in the US in early June 2023, the two sides ā€˜ā€™focused on ways in which both governments can facilitate the development and trade of technologies in critical domains such as semiconductors, space, telecom, quantum, AI, defense, biotech and others.ā€™ā€™

US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin also made his second visit to India in early June 2023. Discussions took place around the transfer of technology and joint production of GE-F414 turbofan by the US-based General Electric (GE) and Hindustan Aeronautics, an Indian Public Sector Undertaking. These engines will be used in the made-in-India Tejas Mark-2 fighter jets. Modiā€™s visit to the US solidified an MoU between GE and Hindustan Aeronautics on June 22.

Opportunities for Peaceful Compromise

When relations between two countries are as comprehensive and complex as those between the US and India, there will always be a few areas of disagreement. The US, like several other Western nations, is unhappy that India remains in the Russia-Ukraine War and that they continue to buy increasing quantities of and fertilizers from Russia. Modi did Russian President Putin in September 2022 in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, that ā€˜ā€™today is not an era of war.ā€™ā€™ 

The US issued a number of statements immediately after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, calling for India to take a firm stance Russia. In recent months, the US has that its relationship with India is not affected by its stance on Russia. The of Jake Sullivan to New Delhi in early June signals that the US-India partnership remains strong. 

Another issue on which India has voiced its dissatisfaction is the US to provide Pakistan with a grant of $450 million to upgrade its F-16 fleet. The US argument on this issue is that assistance is being provided to Pakistan only to fight terrorism; India does not find this argument satisfactory. In addition, the chaotic manner of the withdrawal of the US and NATO forces from Afghanistan in 2021 and the recent by the US Ambassador in Pakistan to Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, in which he referred to the region as Azad (ā€œFreeā€) Kashmir, riled India. However, India has clearly communicated its unhappiness on all these issues to the US.

A Partnership of Trust

India and the US recognize that the areas of bilateral convergence are far greater than the issues that separate them. The challenge before the leadership of these two countries is to focus and build upon the areas of convergence while continuing to have honest conversations on their differences.

In his interaction with Biden on the sidelines of the Quad Summit in Tokyo in May 2022, Modi the bilateral relations as a ā€˜ā€™Partnership of Trust.ā€™ā€™ Biden said that he would like to make US relations with India ā€˜ā€™among the closest we have on earth.ā€™ā€™ Responding to a question during his at the Aspen Security Forum on 9th December 2022, Kurt Campbell, the White House Asia coordinator, said that ā€˜ā€™India is the most important bilateral relationship for the United States in the 21st century.ā€™ā€™

With strong and visionary leadership in the two countries, US-India bilateral ties can be expected to scale even greater heights in the years to come. Modiā€™s significant recent visit to the US will play a vital and decisive role in achieving this objective.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post The Latest Leap Forward in the US-India Partnership appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

The itinerary indicated how much prominence had been accorded to the visit. In the run-up to the visit, defense deals like the purchase of much-delayed Predator armed drones worth $3 billion have been finalized. The US has also agreed to a Transfer of Technology (ToT) of FE-414 engines for ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s Tejas-2 fighters. It appears that the visit covered most bases, from formal and informal events to defense deals and publicity.

However, it is appropriate to look beyond the hype and get down to brass tacks in our examination. There are a few hard choices that, if made, can really foster a long-term and meaningful strategic partnership between the worldā€™s two largest democracies.

Partners at two different places in the relationship

American expectations are based on a model of Indian compliance, if not one of an outright patron-client relationship. Despite declining US power, the huge remaining asymmetry between two prospective partnersā€”especially in defense technology and brute hard powerā€”fuels such expectations.

India, on the other hand, is known to be a difficult ally. India fiercely safeguards her strategic autonomy and views herself as practicing a refined version of non-alignment. Indian reticence resulted in giving new customized names to bilateral foundation agreements. ā€œCommunications Compatibility and Security Agreementā€ (COMCASA) had to be tweaked and customized to ā€œCommunications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreementā€ (CISMOA) for India. Such complexities, often dubbed bureaucratese, have prompted experts like to highlight the limitations of the promised relationship. India would like to be seen as the ultimate balancer, promoting multipolarity. New Delhi insists on partnership even when it may, in the near- and mid-term, remain the net recipient or beneficiary. 

The geopolitical necessities of dealing with an aggressive China have forced India closer to the Quad in order to dissuade her aggressive neighbor. India knows the limitations of such relationships and doesnā€™t expect boots on the ground. It also realistically appraises the concentricity of Washington-led alliances, like the Five Eyes alliance which complements the Quad, where India is missing.

India, with the Pakistani thorn in her side, was content to accommodate Chinese sensitivities until 2020. Millennials with no memory of the 1962 humiliation were content to remain focused on geo-economics. Economic growth in cooperation with China, as visualized by Deng, seemed to be a fait accompli. Xi Jinping, with his tactical mindset and brash aggressive maneuvers on the Sino-Indian borders, has destroyed that strategic dream. Self-reliance, decoupling and standing up to bullies are now part of the altered discourse in India.

While America may have failed to mold India to its expectations, Xi has certainly pushed India closer to the US by creating a strategic gulf between his country and its Asian neighbor. In the future, while Washington may not have a fully compliant ally, it can certainly bank on a rising India competing with, countering and balancing Beijing.

India, America and that other, once-great power

India has been dependent on Russia for its armaments and munitions since 1971, when Nixon and Kissinger, chaperoned by Rawalpindi brass, were courting China. Russia (and, before it, the USSR) has been a dependable ally to India, but its capacity in a post-Ukraine scenario will be severely circumscribed. More importantly, the myth of Russian ToT stands exposed by the federationā€™s continued dependency on extra-Russian sources for critical components. The arrangement really amounts to licensed production.

The first things Russia will need to borrow from India are not just ā€œprint to designā€ (know-how) but also know-why. India has at its disposal probably the largest inventory in a war scenario, whether that is a proxy war with Pakistan to the west or a deployment (already prepared for) to ward off China in the north. Unlike many smaller nations, India has not only displayed the nerve to stand up to China but has undertaken quid-pro-quo operations against it, debunking the myth of Chinese invincibility.

Indian crews have the magical ability to quickly master equipment and improvise, something that is known as Indian jugaad. This has been demonstrated by far inferior Gnats in Indian hands taking on Sabre jets and near-obsolescent Centurions creating a graveyard of Patton tanks. Unfortunately, American equipment in Pak hands was on the receiving end. In 1971, Indians once again defied the challenges of riverine terrain in a lightning strike. Medium tanks, T-55s, forded boggy fields and PT-76s floated across mighty rivers with helicopters ferrying infantry across. They actually are devoted to and worship their weapons.

Ukrainian and other conflicts have busted the reputation for invincibility of many famed weapon systems, mostly due to inept handling. One is reminded of a horse breeder, who mandated compulsory riding tests for his customers. In this, there can surely be the vested interest of the US military-industrial complex. Sell your equipment and technology to capable users. 

Defense partnership can flourish with genuine and assured life cycle support. It should empower hosts with spares, repairs and overhaul capability. In fact, India can be utilized as a hub for the region. Indians are known for not discarding their equipment in a hurry. T55 tanks, which this author was commissioned on as a young man, continue to be in service. Life cycle extension and retrofitting would be in keeping with Indian ethos. Russia sold India weapons in famous barter deals like bananas-for-guns exchanges. Considering how long the drone deal was delayed due to money issues, Indians should hope that the Russian example will inject pragmatism into their American partnersā€™ working out effective packages, especially for life-cycle support.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Is the Indo-American Relationship Being Handled With Intelligence? appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

ASPIRING FOR THE MODERN

Climate change has come to dominate modern-day politics and political activism in much of the developed West. This has occurred even more so in the last few years, owing to increased efforts to influence policies across governments on issues ranging from sustainability to decarbonization. Climate politics in the West is largely identified with Left-leaning political movements that usually don the label of ā€˜progressivismā€™ as compared to Right-leaning ā€˜conservatism.ā€™

In India, the political templates of the West fall by the wayside, as PM Narendra Modi has defied the political stereotypes used in the West through a policy-level commitment to sustainability. To understand how he has broken through these stereotypes to champion sustainability, one has to take a journey through Mann Ki Baat over the years, in which he connects modern ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s priorities with ancient ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s principles. The PM considers the past to be a living guide that is constantly mentoring, informing, guiding and advising. Mann Ki Baat has, in many ways, brought ancient ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s history alive to have a conversation with modern India on its path to development.

In the April 2018 episode, the PM touched upon a subject that has been dear to him for decadesā€”water conservation. He took the opportunity to inform listeners about how water conservation has been a way of life in India for centuries. Recalling the due priority and importance given to each drop of water, he highlighted the many indigenous methods developed to conserve water. Talking about stone carvings in Tamil Nadu depicting irrigation systems, water conservation methods and drought management, he urged the listeners of Mann Ki Baat to visit historic sites in the state, such as Mannarkovil, Cheranmahadevi, Kovilpatti and Pudukkottai, to see these massive stone inscriptions. Drawing peopleā€™s attention to baoris (stepwells), which have emerged as famous tourist spots, such as the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage site of Adalaj and Patanā€™s Rani ki Vav in Gujarat, PM Modi called them temples of water conservation. Speaking about Chand Baori in Rajasthan, one of the biggest and the most beautiful stepwells of India, the PM drove home the point that water conservation has had an ethical and societal value in India from ancient times.

More than a year later, in November 2019, the programme veered back to this critical subject, during which the PM highlighted the manner in which ancient Indian culture celebrated rivers periodically, through festivals dedicated to 12 rivers across India.

My dear , Pushkaram, Pushkaraalu, Pushkarahaā€”have you ever heard these terms? Do you know what these are? Let me tell you. These are the different names by which festivals organized on 12 different rivers across the country are called. One river every yearā€¦that means it would recur on that particular river after 12 yearsā€¦ and this festival is held sequentially every year in 12 different rivers spread across the countryā€¦ and it lasts for 12 long days. Just like the Kumbh festival, this too, encourages the concept of national unity. And echoes the philosophy of ā€˜Ek Bharat Shreshtha Bharatā€™ (One India Best India). [ā€¦] Pushkaram is a festival in which the greatness of the river, the glory of the river, the importance of the river in our livesā€¦ all these are brought forth naturally. Our forefathers put a lot of emphasis on nature, on environment, on water, on land, on forests. They understood the importance of rivers, and tried to inculcate a positive mindset towards rivers in the society. They constantly strove to conflate the river with the cultural stream, the stream of tradition, and with the society. And the interesting thing is that, not only did it bring the society closer to the rivers, it also brought people closer to each other. Last year, the Pushkaram was held on the Thamirabarani river in Tamil Nadu. This year it was held on the Brahmaputra River. Next year it will be held in Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka on the Tungabhadra River.

In April 2022, PM Modi once again invoked tradition and cultural values to speak about water conservation, highlighting its importance. He quoted ancient Indian scriptures to renew his appeal to citizens: Paniyam paramam loke, jeevanam jeevanam samritam (Water is most important for survival of life on our planet, all of life is encompassed in it).

Explaining the essence of the quote, he reiterated how water was the basis for all life on the Earth and the greatest resource for humanity. Recounting how water conservation was a persistent theme across great Indian epics, such as the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, PM Modi emphasized the need to connect water sources across India. Tracing ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s water engineering heritage to the Indusā€“Sarasvati civilization, he spoke about how Harappan sites had interconnected systems of water sources. Paying special attention to indigenous wisdom in water conservation of several native tribes, the PM underscored how sustainable living was a universal ethic across ancient ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s diverse cultures.

Friends, every effort related to water is related to our tomorrow. It is the responsibility of the whole society. For this, different societies have made various efforts continuously for centuries. For example, Maldhari, a tribe of Rann of Kutch uses a method called Vridas for water conservation. Under this, small wells are built and trees and plants are planted nearby to protect it. Similarly, the Bhil tribe of Madhya Pradesh used their historical tradition Halma for water conservation. Under this tradition, the people of this tribe gather at one place to find a solution to the problems related to water. Due to the suggestions received from the Halma tradition, the water crisis in this area has reduced and the ground water level is also increasing.

 PAST INSPIRES THE PRESENT

The ancient Indian lessons on conservation and afforestation on Mann Ki Baat have inspired grassroots champions across India to share their voluntary efforts to combat climate change. An unusual instance of this is the inspirational manner in which Sonal Mhatreā€™s wedding was hosted by her grandfather Khandu Maruti Mhatre, a farmer from Narayanpur village of Junner Taluka of Pune. Her grandfather came upon the idea of distributing saplings of the Kesar variety of mango, thus making her wedding an everlasting story of love for nature.

Speaking about this innovative effort, PM Modi recounted the ā€˜Anushasan Parvā€™, a chapter from the Mahabharata, that speaks of the belief that planting a tree begets an offspring in the form of that tree.

There can be no doubt about this fact. He who donates a tree, that tree in return becomes a ladder to salvation just like children [sic]. Therefore, it is appropriate that parents desiring their well-being should plant tree and rear them like their own children.

Drawing further examples from the Bhagavad Gita, PM Modi also highlighted how concern for the well-being of trees in the middle of the battlefield is a reminder of how our ancestors valued nature and conservation. Citing a quote from Shukracharyaā€™s treatise, he also drew the attention of the listeners to the medicinal value of every tree, plant and herb. Giving his own example from his days as the CM, PM Modi described how, at the Ambaji Temple. 

 in Gujarat, saplings were gifted as divine offerings to visiting devotees by a non-governmental organization (NGO), a practice that spread to other temples as well and encouraged afforestation and preservation of the green cover.

There are many instances of listeners echoing PM Modi and bringing to his attention the manner in which our ancient heritage can inspire solutions to modern-day problems of conservation. Manish Mahapatra from Puducherry urged PM Modi to inform the nation about how ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s native tribes and their ancient traditions are great examples of coexistence with nature for sustainable development. PM Modiā€™s reply, shared on Mann Ki Baat, is a retelling of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s native history from the vantage point of modern-day sustainability.

Manishji, I appreciate you for bringing this subject among the listeners of Mann Ki Baat. This is one subject that inspires us to look into our dignified past and our ancient traditions. Today, the whole world and specially the western countries are discussing about environment protection and are trying to find new ways to adopt a balanced life style. Our country is also facing this problem. But, for its solution we only have to look inwards, to look into our glorious past and our rich traditions and have especially to understand the lifestyle of our tribal communities. To live in consonance and close coordination with the nature has been an integral part of our tribal communities. Our tribal brethren worship trees and plants and flowers like gods and goddesses. The Bhil tribes of Central India and [especially] those in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh worship Peepal and Arjun trees religiously. The Bishnoi community in the desert land of Rajasthan has shown us a way of environment protection. Specially, in the context of serving trees, they prefer laying down their lives but cannot tolerate any harm to a single tree. Mishmi tribes of Arunachal Pradesh claim their relationship with tigers. They even treat them like their brothers and sisters. In Nagaland as well, tigers are seen as the forest guardians. People of Warli Community in Maharashtra consider tigers as their guests and for them the presence of tigers is a good omen indicating prosperity. There is a belief among the Kol community in Central India that their fortune is directly connected with the tigers and they firmly believe that if the tigers do not get food, the villagers will have to face hunger. The Gond tribe in Central [India] stops fishing in some parts of Kaithan river during the breeding season. They consider this area as a fish reserve and they get plentiful of healthy fishes because of this belief of theirs. Tribal communities make their dwelling units from natural material, which are strong as well as eco- friendly. In the isolated regions of the Nilgiri plateau in South India, a small wanderer community Toda make their [sic] settlements using locally available material only.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Collective Spirit, Concrete Action, Mann Ki Baat and Its Influence on India appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

On my way, I saw hoardings welcoming delegates for a meeting. At my village, which has a population of a little over 500, people wanted to discuss G20 with me. This surprised me and, on my return, I can now see what is going on.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has decided to host hundreds of delegates coming from G20 nations in 50 locations across the country. Only the final G20 Summit will be held in New Delhi. This is a break from precedent. In the past, international meetings were largely conducted in New Delhi, the British-built colonial capital. Its anglicized elite dominated discourse on ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s foreign policy and strategic affairs. That has changed completely. Modi has democratized discourse in a young and dynamic nation.

The G20 comprises 19 countries and the EU. Today, G20 delegates are meeting in Srinagar, the capital of Kashmir. Since 1989, Kashmirā€™s economy imploded for three decades because of a Pakistan-fueled insurgency. India has subsidized this beautiful part of the world. In 2019, India abrogated Article 370 that kept Kashmir locked out of the national economy. Western media like and criticized Indian actions without understanding either the historical context or economic implications of the decision. 

Four years later, this decision has led to more peace and greater prosperity in Kashmir. The G20 meeting that kicks off in Kashmir today will shine the light on the beauty of this fabled land. China is the meeting. Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are following suit but delegates from the other 16 members are attending. They will see Kashmir with their own eyes. Both national and international media will cover the visit of G20 delegates. This will give tourism, a historical mainstay of the economy, a shot in the arm. The G20 meeting will also increase investment in Kashmir.

What Lies Behind ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s Bold Bet on Kashmir?

Move to Peace in Paradise

For good reason, Kashmir is known as paradise on earth. For decades, Indian couples went on their honeymoons here. Bollywood producers shot songs for iconic movies in Kashmir. During long hot summers, Indians made their way here for cool climes, spectacular vistas and the refined local cuisine. Foreigners visited in droves too. Both Indian and foreign tourists invariably returned with arts and crafts, boosting the Kashmiri economy.

Kashmir is on the upswing again. In 2022, Indian tourists by 64.5% since the last year. Foreign tourists went up by a staggering 1111.3%. Progress in Kashmir is anathema to Pakistan and China. Both of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s neighbors claim part of Kashmiri territory. Both would like to see this region unsettled and, ideally, tormented by insurgency for geopolitical reasons.

Sadly for Pakistan and China, Kashmir is increasingly peaceful. Indian Home Minister Amit Shahā€™s junior minister informed the Indian parliament that terrorist incidents have by 45% since 2018. That year, 228 terrorist incidents occurred that killed 91 security personnel. In 2022, this number had fallen to 125 and 31 security personnel deaths.

Grassroots Democracy and Local Economy Improves in Kashmir

Since 1989, insurgency has hurt democracy in Kashmir. Too many people with guns have threatened civil society and local elected bodies. In October 2020, the government amended legislation for elected local bodies. Now, village, town and district representatives of the people will decide the developmental agenda. 

Even before this reform, Kashmiris demonstrated a great appetite for democratic participation. A record turned out to vote in 2019 after Article 370 was abolished. Shah has announced that his government is creating the right conditions for the Election Commission to conduct assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir, the union territory that comprises both the Jammu and Kashmir regions of the country.

Unfortunately, international organizations and Western media ignore positive developments in Kashmir. argues that the Indian government has deployed repressive state machinery in Jammu and Kashmir. The deepening of democracy and the reduction in violence have not attracted attention. Nor has the violence unleashed by terrorist organizations based in and funded by Pakistan. This ideological fixation with blaming India for all of Kashmirā€™s ills is untrue and, more importantly, unwise.

The likes of Amnesty International and The New York Times are risking irrelevance. The Modi government does not have an inferiority complex vis-Ć -vis these institutions. Earlier governments were ruffled by them. Now, the Modi government lets junior authorities respond to obviously biased reports that cherry pick facts and ignore the great gains Kashmir has made since 2019. 

One of these gains is the development of top-class infrastructure. Railways, roads, ports and airports are emerging all across the country. Since 2014, the Modi government has constructed of national highways in Kashmir. Power generation is expected to double by 2025. Kashmir is finally developing the infrastructure that will give a major multiplier effect to its economy. 

Better infrastructure is leading to increased investment. The makers of Dubaiā€™s are investing $60 million in Kashmir Valley, the first foreign direct Investment in the region. Jammu and Kashmir is expecting to attract $10 billion, which is likely to create . 

The G20 meeting will give a signal to the world that Kashmir is open for business, improving the investment climate and employment opportunities in the region. With rising tourism, increasing trade and incoming investment, Kashmirā€™s economy is headed to the bright sunlit uplands. The visit by the delegates of the G20 will give the economy of this fantastically beautiful land a further and welcome boost.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post How to Interpret India’s Kashmir G20 Meeting appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi inherited a Nehruvian defense policy that was flaccid. India did not have a clear strategy against an aggressive China and a hostile Pakistan. Furthermore, there was corruption in defense imports. 

Modi has a chance to change that Nehruvian legacy. He must modernize ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s defense policy. COVID-19 and the Russia-Ukraine War have been to the Indian economy. So, India has to be efficient in its defense expenditure and use modern technology to counter its two nuclear-armed neighbors.

±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s Defense Strategy Has Evolved Since 2020

Post-independence ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s defense policy. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister, , ā€œWe donā€™t need a defense policy. Our policy is ahimsa (non-violence). We foresee no military threats. As far as I am concerned, you can scrap the army ā€“ the police are good enough to meet our security needs.ā€ 

Nehru had a rude wake-up call in 1947-48 when Pakistan invaded Jammu and Kashmir. Yet he ignored this warning and continued to neglect the military. In fact, Nehru chronically feared a military coup. He kept the military out of the national foreign policy framework and decision-making loop. Nehruā€™s principle of non-alignment was to have no military alliances with superpowers. The 1962 India-China War destroyed Nehruā€™s childlike ideas about national security. It appears Nehru was unfamiliar with the great Indian political philosopher Kautilya.

Under Modi, India has changed and is finally letting the military take a central role in driving defense diplomacy. In January 2020, the Modi government created the office of the chief of defense staff (CDS). Its mandate is to unify the military services and improve their effectiveness. commands created over three to four years would partly help achieve this. Admiral Arun Prakash this move ā€œthe most significant development in the national security domain since Independence.ā€

The Modi government seeks to build up the domestic defense industry in its policy of import substitution. It also seeks to improve defense through joint ventures with US and Israeli defense companies. A key goal of these ventures is transfer of technology to India. In May 2020, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s foreign direct investment (FDI) limit rose to 74% under the automatic route in the defense sector. Despite from labor unions, corporatization of has already begun and of niche technologies is also underway. The Make in India and (Self-Reliant India) policies are helping this effort. These include artificial intelligence, blockchain, quantum communications, unmanned systems, and other directed-energy weapons. 

±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s Border Roads Organisation (BRO) has been building critical roads, bridges, and tunnels along the Chinese border. The country is also eliminating in its borders with Pakistan and Bangladesh. It is adoptingall land, water and space technologies, i.e. radar, sonar, laser and drones, to secure the border. It is also emulating Israelā€™s smart fencing, quick response teams and CCTV control rooms on its borders. Israel now has an system to shoot down hostile drones, which India seeks to adopt. 

±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s with Myanmar is also being and sealed to manage northeast insurgents who engage in arms and drug trafficking from the that includes parts of Burma, China, Laos and Thailand. 

The Modi government is also the National Cyber Security Strategy of 2023.

The Times Have Changed and India Must Change Too

India’s supply chain dependency of 85% on a much-weakened Russia is no longer tenable. In the Ukraine war, Russian arms and platforms have been found wanting against NATOā€™s superior firepower. Russia is also strapped for resources and would be unable to supply spare parts to India, were a conflict to arise. It is true that Russian arms are effective and they are much cheaper than their Western counterparts. Moscow has also been flexible on and waivers. Yet India has no option but to diversify its supply chain. Indigenization and diversification of its military supply chain are the need of the hour. Future defense procurement is likely to come from the US, France, Israel, UK and Italy.

The Ukraine war has also shown how corruption is now a national security issue. Part of the reason the Russians did poorly early in the war was because of rampant corruption in procurement, maintenance and all aspects of their military. India has a history of corruption in too. from four or five important families dominate this space and the defense ministry is trying to sideline them. This is a matter of national importance.

The Ukraine war has also demonstrated the importance of new technologies such as drones, advanced hand-held missiles and cyber warfare. Closer to home, the highlighted the importance of technologies. Artificial intelligence, big data, and autonomous vehicles including aircrafts and ships will play an increasing role in war as will quantum computing.

As of now, India is using  drone jamming technology to counter drone-based and terrorism in Punjab and Jammu. India must disseminate this technology better to security forces around the country to improve national security. India needs to manage its border with Myanmar better as well. As stated above, insurgents can be a menace in that part of the world and the current porous border has to be monitored better.

It is also time for the Modi government to the scheme. Most of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s defense budget goes into salaries, pensions and benefits. This four-year tour of duty scheme frees up resources for weapons, modernization and new technology.

India Needs Institutional Reforms

A may find India ā€œresource-constrained, overstretched, and vulnerable.ā€ Therefore, India must improve its operational readiness and reform its institutions. The prime minister recognizes the need for reforms. To his credit, Modi advocated for a CDS in and introduced the post in January 2020. The position of the CDS was first mooted after the 1971 India-Pakistan War. Inter-services rivalry and a fear of by the army delayed the introduction of the CDS. Even the 1991 Kargil War did not change things. 

Similarly, joint theater commands have been pending. They are a complicated process and can take a lot of time. The US military took almost to fine-tune these commands after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Yet India does not have the luxury of the US with two oceans providing security from foreign threats. Long borders with Pakistan and China make joint theater commands a priority.

It is high time for the government to reform the that acts as the militaryā€™s overlord. Unlike the Japanese, French, Israeli or American military bureaucracies, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s defense ministry is run by generalists. They can be in the ministry of textiles one day and be in charge of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s navy the next day. India needs domain specialists, not generalists from ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s so-called elite Indian Administrative Service (IAS) running its defense. Nehru established the IAS stranglehold on the military, which Modi must end soon.

India also needs a thorough overhaul of its professional . This will help to ā€œ [in] the new structures that are taking shape.ā€ India also has to improve its military expenditure, which lags behind that of China and the US. It also has to improve its research institutions, many of which are bureaucratic and sclerotic. Autonomy, accountability and professional management of these institutions would improve ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s national security tremendously.

Improve the Balance of Power and Make a Deal with China

Kautilya teaches us that the enemy of our enemy is a . The US fears Chinaā€™s ascendency. India also needs to enhance its balance of power equation with China. A deeper economic and security arrangement with the US is in ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s national interest. 

India must attract manufacturing away from China. It must compete to be the manufacturing hub of the world. Chinaā€™s increasing tensions with Taiwan give India a unique opportunity. It must emulate key elements of the Chinese manufacturing model. Improving infrastructure, power generation and labor laws would give Indian manufacturing a great boost. 

Kautilya regards wars as expensive. The key driver of war with China is a boundary dispute. India claims the British boundary as legitimate, while China upholds the Qing dynasty. After 18 rounds of negotiations, both countries have been unable to end the impasse. 

From New Delhiā€™s point of view, China occupies square kilometers of Indian territory in the Union territory of Ladakh. This includes the Shaksgam Valley (5,180 square kilometers) gifted by Pakistan in 1963 and Aksai Chin, which was a part of Jammu and Kashmir, that China occupied in the 1950s. Aksai Chin is a largely uninhabited cold high-altitude (4,200 meters above sea level) desert but it is of strategic value because this plateau links Tibet and Xinjiang. The Chinese have built an all-weather road in Aksai Chin. They have also built another road through Shaksgam Valley connecting China to Pakistan.

For China, militarizing both Aksai Chin and Shaksgam Valley is highly expensive. The same is true for India in the case of the Siachen Glacier. Both countries must accept facts on the ground and move on. In 1959, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai proposed maintaining ā€œthe long-existing status quo of the borderā€ and that is what India should propose. Once India and China can define the border, the risks of war will plummet, freeing up valuable resources for both nations.

A creative way forward for India might be to seek compensation for its territory that China occupies. India could ask for 100,000 rupees, i.e. $1,216 per acre. This would amount to $11.59 billion, less than 0.07% of the 2021 Chinese GDP. Of course, the amount of money India claims could be higher and China would bargain hard to lower the price. But India must think creatively and pragmatically to end its border dispute with China. This modern version of the deal would be a win-win for all parties involved.

India must pay attention to Sun Tzu as well. He states that the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. Besides new military alliances with the US and the West, India must recognize the power of its market. China is currently benefiting from trade with India with its trade surplus surpassing in 2021. China accounts for no less than 40% of India’s total. This also gives India negotiating power on border disputes. India must threaten to reduce its Chinese imports during negotiations. 

At the same time, India must reduce sensitive Chinese imports such as pharmaceuticals and mobile phones over the longer term. ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s high dependency on China is unacceptable from a security point of view. As a result of the Ladakh conflict, India some foreign investments in April 2020. It banned Chinese apps like TikTok. 

[Here are Part 1 and Part 3 of this three-part series.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Kautilyan Perspective on How India Should Sort Out China appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

During ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s freedom struggle from English colonization, Sikhs magnificently. As per writer Kartar Singh Duggal, 93 of the 121 patriots hanged by the British were Sikhs and 2,147 of the 2,626 sentenced to life imprisonment were Sikhs. Although Sikhs formed just 1.5% of the population, they made 90% of the sacrifices. Their contribution to Indian independence stands unrivaled.

Sikh History and Psyche: Justice Above All

Between 1800-1850, Maharaja Ranjit Singh created both the first and last Sikh Empire. However, the first Sikh kingdomā€”a state within a stateā€”was established 200 years earlier with the coronation of the sixth Sikh guru in 1606. That year, Guru Hargobind ascended the throne in the Akal Takht, marking the beginning of Sikh statehood. His fatherā€”Guru Arjanā€”had suffered a cruel death at the hands of the Mughals. He advised his son to ā€œsit fully armed on his throne and maintain an army.ā€ As a result, Guru Hargobind adopted the principle of Miri-Piri, which combines both temporal power and spiritual authority. 

Guru Hargobindā€™s fatherā€™s tragic death had a lasting impact on the Sikh psyche. It enshrined the concept of martyrdom in the . Taking an ā€œimplacable stand against injustice and the vagaries of tyrannical rulers” is almost a Sikh duty. The beheading of Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth Sikh guru, and the cowardly attack on Guru Gobind Singh Jiā€™s life, the tenth Sikh guru, strengthened this resolve to stand up to tyranny. Sikhs have faced three long periods of active persecution and: the Chhota Ghallughara (1746), Wada Ghallughara (1762), and the genocide of 1984-1994 under the rule of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s Congress Party.

Sikhs have a dogged stubbornness in their pursuit of justice, which is clearly reflected in their history. Hitting back oppressors is fundamental to the Sikh psyche. This explains the 1710 sacking of, the 1940 assassination of Micheal O’Dwyer in London by, the 1984 assassination of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s then prime minister Indira Gandhi as well the 1986 assassination of retired army chief Arun Vaidya. Sikh extremists killed Gandhi and Vaidya for the 1984 Operation Blue Star in which the Indian Army entered the Golden Temple, the holiest Sikh site.

Sikhs participated with great gusto in the farmer agitation of 2020-21 against the Modi governmentā€™s farm law reforms. Eventually, Modi had to these laws and offer a contrite , which many Sikhs viewed as a gracious act.

These lessons of history are important for any policymaker dealing with Sikhs. Any injustice, real or perceived, invariably leads to blowback. At the same time, an apology often leads to forgiveness and embrace. Sikhs still have bad memories of the 1980s and 1990s. Therefore, some radicals have demanded a separate independent state of Khalistan. Yet this demand is not exactly in keeping with the Sikh tradition.

The Khalistan Movement Is Not Supported by Scripture

As stated earlier, Sikh Gurdwaras are open to people of all religions and all castes, male or female. Rich Sikhs do voluntary work in the langars and joota ghars (shoe store). In the langar, people of different religions, castes, sex, and income status, sit on the ground to eat together. Guru Gobind Singh Ji says, ā€œrecognize the whole human race as oneā€ and ā€œIā€™ll tell the truth, listen everyone. Only those who have loved, will realize the Lord.ā€

Radical Sikhs today hark back to the tenth guruā€™s desire for an independent state. Yet they forget that Guru Gobind Singh Ji made this demand over 300 years ago when faced with Mughal religious persecution. His state never excluded Hindus. The original (the Five Beloved) who joined the Khalsa were from different castes and different regions of India. Even the great Sikh hero was not from Punjab. Clearly, the tenth guru had a pan-India philosophy, which excluded no one. Even Muslims, including a group, joined his army and fought by his side. Importantly, most Sikhs were originally Hindus and many Sikh families still intermarry with Hindu ones. Some Hindu families had a tradition of the eldest son Sikhism.

Guru Gobind Singh Ji was very clear when he appointed the Shri Guru Granth Sahib (SGGS) as the 11th and eternal guru of the Sikhs. In fact, his own sayings are in the. The SGGS does not support the idea of a Sikh theocratic state. , the first guru and founder of Sikhism, says clearly in in the SGGS, ā€œSee the brotherhood of all mankind as the highest order of yogis; conquer your own mind and conquer the world.ā€ This is the key to Sikhism and no Sikh can contradict this core teaching.

Guru Nanakā€™s concept of state can be inferred from his concept of Godā€™s state: the whole universe. It puts forth the governed so that people live in prosperity and happiness. He loved thelife of good deeds, truth and good actions. Sikhism is about inclusion and equality. Guru Arjan, the fifth guru, says in Ang 1299, ā€œNo one is my enemy, and no one is a stranger. I get along with everyone.ā€

As stated earlier, Sikhs militarized with their sixth guru who combined the role of guru and king. Yet his first preference was always for peaceful coexistence. Guru Teg Bahadur, the ninth guru, states in Ang 1427, ā€œOne who does not frighten anyone, and who is not afraid of anyone elseā€¦ call him spiritually wise.ā€ Guru Gobind Singh Ji says in verse 22 of the Zafarnama (his iconic letter to fanatical and cruel Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb): ā€œWhen all means for solving a conflict or problem are exhausted, only then placing your hand to the sword is legitimate.ā€ This is in the specific context of tyranny where all legal means (e.g. petitions, protest marches, discussions etc.) to solve a conflict fail. 

In India, there is currently no state-sponsored agenda against Sikhs. Therefore, scripture does not allow for violence or military action against the Indian state. The rigid Khalistani idea of a theocratic state runs contrary to the Sikh cosmopolitan idea of a welfare state for all.

expounded this idea of ā€œHalemi Rajā€ā€”also known as Khalsa Rajā€”that envisions a society full of love and respect for each other. In a nutshell, the guru was advocating a welfare state: ā€œNow, the Merciful Lord has issued His Command. Let no one chase after and attack anyone else. Let all abide in peace, under this Benevolent Ruleā€ (Ang 74). Bhagat Ravidas, a lower caste shoemaker, defines peace in Ang 345, talking of an idealized city of Baygumpuraā€”a town without worryā€”where there is no suffering or fear, there is peace and safety, and all are equal:

Baygumpura, ‘the city without sorrow’, is the name of the town.

There is no suffering or anxiety there.

There are no troubles or taxes on commodities there.

There is no fear, blemish or downfall there.

Now, I have found this most excellent city.

There is lasting peace and safety there, O Siblings of Destiny.

God’s Kingdom is steady, stable and eternal.

There is no second or third status; all are equal there.

That city is populous and eternally famous.

Those who live there are wealthy and contented.

They stroll about freely, just as they please.

They know the Mansion of the Lord’s Presence, and no one blocks their way.

Says Ravi Daas, the emancipated shoe-maker:

Whoever is a citizen there, is a friend of mine.

From the lines above, it is clear that a rigid rule-based interpretation of the Sikh religion would never lead to Baygumpura. A theocratic Khalistani state would be against the very teachings of the revered Guru Arjan and other venerated Sikh gurus. Such a state is likely to focus more on its outer form, such as  unshorn hair, instead of the spirituality and charity championed by the gurus. Khalistanis forget that many Hindus donate generously to the coffers of gurdwarasā€”Sikh places of worshipā€”and venerate their gurus. Cutting them off would not only be going against a shared history and their gurusā€™ principles but also short-sighted and economically unwise.

The Memory of 1984 Refuses to Go Away for Sikhs Outside India

In 2023, radical Sikhs still remember , the grim 1746 massacre of an estimated 7,000 men and 3,000 women and children. According to Majid Sheikh of noted Pakistani newspaper Dawn, the Muslim butchers of Mohallah Qabasan slit throats not only of men but also of women and children inside Lahoreā€™s Delhi Gate when they did not accept conversion to Islam. 

Unsurprisingly, these radical Sikhs have not forgotten 1984 either. They believe that the Government of India and the Indian Army defiled the Golden Temple. About people died in Operation Bluestar, which many have called an ā€œavoidable tragedyā€ that lives on in Sikh minds to this day. This was followed by Operation Woodrose, which led to going missing. When Indira Gandhi was assassinated, rioters killed Sikhs, 3000 in Delhi alone. During counter-insurgency operations, killings continued until 1994 and talk of ā€œtens of thousandsā€ killed in the 1984-94 ten-year period.

The on the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, had the harshest criticism for the police. It found them guilty of “total passivity, callousness and indifference.ā€ The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) told the Delhi High Court that Delhi Police removed. In March 2019 during the hearing, according to the CBI: ā€œThe murders witnessed during the 1984 Sikh genocide fell under the category of crime against humanityā€¦targeted by spearheaded attacks of dominant political actorsā€¦ and duly facilitated by law enforcement agenciesā€.

Countless women were raped, children killed, and livelihoods destroyed. About 50,000 Sikhs were left homeless as mobs burned their houses to the ground. Countless Sikhs were forced to cut their hair. Thousands left India. Unsurprisingly, the survivors and their descendants are filled with negativity and a lifelong mistrust of Hindus.

The justice delivered was too little and too late. Senior politicians of Indira Gandhiā€™s Congress Party and senior policemen escaped punishment. Only of the accused were sentenced by courts. Only one high-profile was given life imprisonment and just one of the accused was given the . Many convictions were upheld as late as by the High Court, 34 years after the riots. The legal system allowed for further delays via appeals to the Supreme Court.

This bizarre and frustrating lack of fast-track mechanisms for delivering justice has fueled the historic Sikh quest for justice and forms the foundation of the Khalistan Movement. Victims of 1984 and their families living in Canada, UK and the US are the staunchest supporters of this movement. It is these Non-resident Indians (NRIs) of the Sikh community who want Khalistan. Yet these secessionists are much removed from on-ground realities and the pulse of the people in Punjab. The state and the nation have moved on from 1984 but these NRIs have not. They are still stuck in a time warp. 

In 1984, the massacre of Sikhs occurred because of political, not religious, reasons. Modiā€™s Hindu nationalist partyā€”the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)ā€”resolutely opposed the Congress Partyā€™s actions. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was then the towering BJP leader and he stood between a mob and Sikh taxi drivers, their lives. Notably, the BJP had a close relationship with the Sikh party Shiromani Akali Dal for decades.

NRI Sikhs fail to recognize this fact. They conflate the Congress Party with the Indian state. In September 2022, Sikhs For Justice) held a second Khalistan referendum in , a town on the outskirts of Toronto in the Canadian state of Ontario. As per unofficial estimates, about 110,000 people participated in the SFJ referendum. Note that Canada is now home to 800,000 Sikhs. Referendums have also been held in the UK, Geneva, Italy and Australia. 

Those organizing and participating in these referendums have been fed a secessionist diet. Some have ulterior motives to keep the Khalistani flame alive. It allows them to siphon funds from naĆÆve sponsors. Still other return to Punjab with these secessionist ideas to stir the pot.

Of Sikhs worldwide, 24 million, i.e. 92%, live in India. In Punjab, Sikhs comprise 57% of the population. The opposition Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has recently elections in this state, promising change, rapid development and clean governance. The previous government was deeply discredited, creating a desire for something different. This allowed pro-Khalistani elements to get some public support and one leader won in the constituency of Sangrur. Note that the AAP, not Khalistanis, won the vote. This demonstrates that the democratic process is working and that Punjabis and Sikhs have voted for better governance, not secession.

Yet pictures of , the radical Sikh leader who holed up in the Golden Temple and caused Operation Bluestar in 1984, are now freely displayed. Karasā€”metal bracelets that Sikhs are supposed to wear as per their religionā€”with AK 47s engraved on them are now back in fashion. Tensions are simmering again and radical Sikh NRIs are attempting to kick off insurgency in Punjab again.

How could we avoid a violent Khalistan Movement this time around?

The Sikh State of North America ā€“ the 100 x 100 Solution

NRI Sikhs fail to realize that, except for a tiny minority, most Indian Sikhs do not want Khalistan. In fact, many would prefer to leave Punjab and to Canada instead. So, NRI Sikhs are barking up the wrong tree in trying to create a Sikh state in Punjab. 

Instead, they could channel their efforts to create a new Sikh state in Canada. Already, the country has large numbers of Sikhs (800,000) as do Australia (210,000), the UK (500,000) and the US (520,000). Canada has 10 million square kilometers of land with a population of only 38.25 million. Arguably, the Canadian government already has leanings and the country already has some powerful Sikh politicians. NRI Sikhs are a wealthy community. Supported by gurudwara collections, they could buy some land for a new Sikh state. This would be a peaceful and non-violent movement as authorized by scripture.

Singapore offers a good model for the Sikhs. Here, about 5.5 million people now live in 730 square kilometers. For 26 million Sikhs, they would need 3,500 square kilometers, a 60 kilometers x 60 kilometers area. The National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi covers an area of around 1,500 square kilometers. So, Sikhs would only need 2.4 times the NCT area. If we allow for population growth and non-Sikh migration, we are looking at a 100 kilometers x 100 kilometers area, a relatively small 10,000 square kilometers, only .001 (0.1%) of Canadaā€™s area.

Why Canada?

Khalistan is a pipe dream unless India fragments. Prospects of that are low. Furthermore, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s fragmentation is undesirable because it could lead to tragic bloodshed. We only have to cast our eye back to the partition of the country in 1947 to realize the horror of any further partitions in the 2020s.

India is a complex EU-type entity formed by the merger of 565 princely states. Till 1947, they covered 40% of the area of pre-independence India. With such diversity, secessionist tendencies have existed in numerous states including Kashmir, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Nagaland, and Mizoram. India has also faced a homegrown communist insurgency in the form of the Naxalite Movement. With increasing urbanization and internal migration, pan-Indian nationalism has strengthened and the country is in no mood for fragmentation. Any talk of secession will only lead to violence, bloodshed and suffering.

Remember that Khalistan is associated with a decade of pain in India. So, a new Sikh State of North America (SSNA), which is part of the federal model in Canada makes more sense. Quebec already provides a template for SSNA. This state would have the same currency, passport, foreign relations and security arrangements as Canada. They would function under stable and professional economic and foreign policy institutions in a bountiful state blessed with natural resources.

Of course, Sikh NRIs would have to win the Canadian people and the government to their cause. The days when states sold off territory seem to belong to the era of the Louisiana and Alaska purchases. However, SSNA could transpire given Canadian sympathies for the Sikh cause.

The SSNA could gradually have more control over immigration and taxation. An Overseas Citizenship of SSNA passport could one day be given to Sikhs around the world. The route to immigration via reasonable investments as already offered by many countries could be a good model for the SSNA. 

In keeping with Sikh scripture and Canadaā€™s multiculturalism, the SSNA could not be theocratic. Given the large number of Sikhs in the US, it could share a border with Canadaā€™s southern neighbor to facilitate trade, commerce and investment. The formation of SSNA will take the steam out of the Khalistan Movement. It will lead to less anger in Sikh NRIs and more peace in Punjab. In the long run, a prosperous SSNA could emerge as the biggest investor in Punjab, creating a win-win for all concerned.

[ edited this piece.]

[You can read the full paper, “National Security: Blueprint for the Sikh State of North America,”Ā .]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post National Security: The Sikh State of North America appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Hindenburg Research accused the Adani Group of brazen stock manipulation and accounting fraud over the course of decades. The firm claimed that the Adani Group had taken on substantial debt, including pledging shares of their inflated stock for loans. Apparently, this had put the entire group on precarious financial footing.

Hindenburg Research also pointed out that eight of the 22 key leaders are Adani family members. They labeled the Adani Group as ā€œa family business,ā€ not a professional corporation. They also pointed out that this family business faced four major government fraud investigations for money laundering, theft of taxpayer funds and corruption, totaling an estimated $17 billion. Hindenburg Research accused the Adani family of creating offshore shell entities in tax-haven jurisdictions like Mauritius, the UAE, and Caribbean Islands to siphon money from the listed companies.

As per The Financial Times, ā€œGautam Adaniā€™s business empire has had more than wiped from its valueā€ since the Hindenburg revelations. They triggered a selloff that erased more than 60% ā€œfrom the value of Adaniā€™s publicly traded companies and rocked an empire that spans ports to airports to energy.ā€ Consequently, Adani has had a fall from grace and is no longer among the top 100 richest people in the world. 

After Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014, the Adani Group has expanded rapidly. The opposition alleges that the Modi government has favored Adani. Rahul Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehruā€™s great grandson and heir to the Congress Party throne, has that Modi favors Adani and compared the Adani Group to the British East India Company. On February 22, The Financial Times published a report that ā€œthat used diplomatic sway and cheap financing to help private Indian companies, including Adani,ā€

It is easy to get carried away with allegations by a foreign short-seller and a privileged dynast. With elections looming in 2024, the latter has votes to win and an obvious ax to grind. Hindenburg Research has an even more obvious ax to grind. Simply put, it is a short-seller. Short-selling is a phenomenon when an investor borrows a security and sells it on the open market, planning to buy it back later for less money. Short-sellers bet on, and profit from, a drop in a securityā€™s price. In contrast, long investors buy a security in the expectation that its price would increase. 

What really is going on?

Short-sellers often in ā€œpredatory and opportunistic behavior.ā€ Sometimes, they uncover fraud and, in the case of James Chanos, bring down mighty companies like Enron. In other cases, they ruin companies by their exaggerated claims that spook markets. Hindenburg Research has some big scalps to its name but it has also got some calls wrong. In the case of electric truck manufacturer , Hindenburgā€™s revelations led to the resignation of its founder and CEO. In the case of Twitter, the investment firm did not fare that well.

The reality is that Hindenburg Research are no do-gooders. Like the Wolf of Wall Street, this short-seller is out to make a quick buck. It has targeted the Adani Group for that reason and some of its allegations are wildly off the mark.

Over the last few years, the Modi government has focused on industrialization and infrastructure development. The Adani Group has poured tens of billions of dollars in big projects. It operates airports in Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Lucknow, Bengaluru, Jaipur and Guwahati. The Adani Group has invested in ports, electricity transmission, airports, solar energy, road construction and agricultural storage. It has real assets with strong revenue streams.

Not only is the Adani Group generating 20,000 megawatt of solar energy, it is also manufacturing solar panels as well as other equipment for generating renewable energy. It has also invested in the capital-intensive semiconductor business. This is reducing ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s reliance on China and is a jolly good thing not only for the country but also the West.

Unfortunately, there is a hostile view of the Modi government and of India among many in the West. The Economist called ā€œthe of Gautam Adaniā€ a test for Indian capitalism. George Soros, an infamous short-seller who caused the crash of the pound in 1992 and the collapse of Asian currencies in 1997, guns blazing against both Adani and Modi. He forgot that Adani has created thousands of jobs through industries and infrastructure. The latter will have an enormous multiplier effect on the Indian economy.
In contrast, the short-selling of Andersonā€”the founder of Hindenburg Researchā€”and Sors, is far more short-term and fails to increase productivity or create assets in the same way as Adani or Henry Ford. Furthermore, both Anderson and Soros represent the white savior complex that Soundarajan Narendran has explored in detail in an earlier article for this publication. They pretend to be knights in shining armor who are saving Indian capitalism and Indian democracy. The reality is that they are profiting by their actions, increasing both wealth and power in the process.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post The Truth About Hindenburg Research and Gautam Adani appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Every country ā€“ rich and poor, scrambled to find a balance between reducing the impact of the virus while keeping the economy running. Every country faced its unique challenges, but none more than India. The scale, complexity and diversity of the country coupled with its deep global economic integration meant India had to find counters to the pandemic required evolving its own financial, healthcare and social models.

And India did just that. With decisive political leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, ingenuity of Indian pharmaceutical firms and their scientists, and adoption of a whole of government approach, India overcame the worst fears and potential downside scenarios. India created its own vaccine intellectual property, leveraged its technology and infrastructure backbone to distribute them, and helped the world in the true spirit of vasudhaiv kutumbakam: a Sanskrit word that means the world is one family.

±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s fortitude and collective resolve was based on its self-belief, which played a key role in the countryā€™s resilience in facing the pandemic. ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s response to COVID has put India on a path of an ingrained aatmanirbhar, which literally  means self-reliance.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post FOĀ° Talks: India’s Valuable Learnings from Braving a Viral Storm appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Few in the US or the UK realize that Modiā€™s party has been increasingly successful with women voters. This year key Indian states went to the polls. The BJP did better among women than among men. In ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s most populous state of (UP), 48% of women voted for the BJP in comparison to 44% of the men. Despite the BJPā€™s UP success, the BBC dryly ā€œAre women really thriving in UP as PM Modi claims?ā€ The article concludes with the quote ā€œWomen here have very little freedom. They are told who to vote for and they often vote along with the rest of the family.”

Data shows women exercise choice

The BJP is facing a common refrain: India is a misogynistic country that disempowers women, and women vote dutifully for the BJP because they are instructed to do so by their men. If that is true, how do we explain women voting for the BJP in greater numbers than men?

±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s Foreign Minister Schools Western Journalist

READ MORE

According to a done by India Today-Axis My India (the group that most accurately predicted the May 2019 national election results), 46% of women voted for the BJP and its allies, 27% for the Congress and its allies, and 27% for other parties. In comparison, 44% of men voted for the BJP and its allies. The male vote lagged the female vote by two percentage points. Notably, this election marked the first time more women than men voted for the National Democratic Alliance, a coalition of the BJP and its allies, in a national election.

So what is going on here? Are women doing as theyā€™re told more often than theyā€™re being told to do it? have concluded the data suggest ā€œwomen voters are perhaps making different political choices from the male members of their families.ā€ If so, then why? The answer seems to lie in the BJPā€™s prioritization of womenā€™s issues. From toilets and menstrual hygiene to piped water supply and cooking gas, the BJP has made womenā€™s issues central to its agenda.

In 2020, Modi broke a longstanding taboo by addressing the issue of menstrual health in his August 15 Independence Day . He declared ā€œThrough 6,000 Jan Aushadhi centers, about 50 million women have got sanitary pads at [Rupee] 1 . We have worked for women’s empowerment. Navy and Air Force are taking women in combat roles…women are now leaders.ā€ Note that one rupee is a little over one cent. This means that women can get sanitary napkins at the cheapest rate in the world.

Modiā€™s claim of putting women in positions of power is no empty boast. In Gujarat, he was succeeded as chief minister by Anandiben Patel, who is now the governor of UP. This year, Modiā€™s BJP has elected Draupadi Murmu as president. She is the second woman to hold that office. More importantly, she is the first woman who comes from ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s long-oppressed scheduled tribes to become president.

Modiā€™s outreach to women is part of a longstanding BJP tradition. From the very beginning, the party created Mahila Morcha, its extremely active womenā€™s wing. It had strong female leaders such as Vijaya Raje Scindia and Sushma Swaraj, both of whom died after decades of public service. With Murmu as the head of state, the BJP is sending the signal to women from underprivileged backgrounds that they too can rise to the top.

Well-implemented schemes prove popular with women

Newly independent ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s socialist state proved adept at highfalutin rhetoric but poor at the delivery of public services. Since Modi came to power in 2014, these fundamental services have been prioritized with effective outcomes. Some schemes are noteworthy to understand what is going on.

• In 2014, the state of sanitation in the country was poor. Only around 40% of households had access to a toilet. With the introduction of (SBM-G), over 100 million household toilets have been constructed in rural India over the last six years.
  
  Toilets have led to improved sanitation and better hygiene for millions, especially women and girls. Household toilets ensure better menstrual hygiene, fewer bladder infections and better reproductive health. Womenā€™s personal safety improves because they are not going out to the fields or the train tracks where they could be harassed or even assaulted by men.

• On May 1, 2016, the Modi government launched Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) to provide a clean cooking fuel: liquified petroleum gas (LPG). For decades, Indian women were using firewood, cow dung and other biomass to cook. Long term exposure to biomass as cooking fuel is disastrous. The disastrous effects of long-term exposure to biomass as a cooking fuel are : it damages lungs for life and shortens lifespans. 
  
  With the implementation of PMUY, the national LPG coverage has increased from 61.9% percent as of April 1, 2016, to 99.5% as of January 1, 2021. Academics rightly point out that this transition from biomass to clean cooking has faced . However, it is also clear that the Modi governmentā€™s efforts are starting to .

• Since Modi came to power in 2014, his BJP government has focused on the . By 2024, the government aims ā€œto provide safe and adequate drinking water through individual household tap connections to all households in rural India.ā€ Access to clear water is a common problem throughout developing countries and causes deaths of millions. To Modiā€™s credit, he has focused on solving this problem for India.
  
  As recently as 2019, only 17% of Indian households had access to functioning tap water supply in contrast to today. Strikingly, more than a third of India (35%) gained access to clean water in just three years. Hundreds of millions no longer have to trek to community wells or other water bodies away from their homes. Now, they can get water through the tap. Note that fetching water is an arduous job that is almost invariably done by women, who are delighted that the Modi government is delivering on something that matters to them.

• Launched in 2015, the Modi governmentā€™s Beti Bachao Beti Padhao (Save Daughter, Educate Daughter) has sought to change attitudes towards birthing and the rights of girls. Over the course of just a few years, the Sex Ratio at Birth (SRB) has improved by 16 points from 918 in 2014-15 to 934 in 2019-20. Some of this might be a feature of economic growth. 

The Old Woman and the QR Code

READ MORE

The narrative of a , Modi may have an element of allure. It may even appeal to some voters. However, this narrative is woefully incomplete. Under Modi, the polls give a sense that the BJP has successfully delivered on issues that matter to women.

Cannily, Modi is cultivating his female voter base. Earlier this year, the prime minister : ā€œWomenā€¦have blessed us ā€“ we have won splendidly in areas where women voters have dominated.ā€ He went on to say, ā€œIt is our good fortune that BJP has got so much love, so many blessings from mothers-sisters-daughters.ā€

Women seem to have blessed the BJP, and a fair review of the data might reveal this fortune is no mere accident, nor the result of ā€œtoxic menā€ telling women how to vote, but because the Modi government has been successful in improving the domestic lives of women. As independent India celebrates its 75th birthday, western journalists and Americans should recognize India is a robust democracy. Honest assessments are fair and to be lauded, and no one should uncritically accept any narrative, but the recent stories in Associated Press, The Washington Post or The New York Times seem facile at best and dismissive at worst. Women from disadvantaged groups in ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s society are rising to better lives, greater hopes, and hundreds of millions have reason to believe a healthier, brighter future awaits them. If thatā€™s not a democratic ideal, I donā€™t know what is.

[An earlier version of this article referred to the president belonging to the scheduled castes. This error was spotted by many readers and was corrected at 15:00 GMT]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Why Women Support Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

For anyone who wants to explain away ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s conduct at the United Nations as an act of national interests, there is more to consider. India is sliding deeper into Hindu ā€” as opposed to a diverse Indian ā€” nationalism, diminishing its ability to be a long-term partner for Western nations.

Modiā€™s India Is Becoming a Farce

READ MORE

±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s slowing economic growth, declining investment in its military capabilities and social unrest have prevented the country from modernizing its army and fulfilling its strategic goals. But it is the ideology of its current leaders that is jeopardizing the notion of India as a dependable partner of the US in the Indo-Pacific region. 

Instead of investing in human capital and health care, the focus of Prime Minister Narendra Modiā€™s government has been on history through crowdsourcing. Instead of further opening the Indian economy through policies and reforms that would boost growth, and regulatory policies are rising. India is slipping on the global freedom and democracy indices, with Freedom House downgrading it to ā€œ.ā€

ā€œUndivided Indiaā€

Leaders of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) continue to mobilize ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s majority Hindus to vote for it by targeting religious minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians. They describe Hinduism as an Indian religion, while Islam and Christianity are denigrated as ā€œforeignā€ faiths transplanted onto ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s soil. Extremist Hindu leaders, including some from the ruling party, have even gone so far as to call for against 200 million Indian Muslims. 

A 2021 Pew Survey on ā€œā€ demonstrated that tolerance for other faiths remains strong within Indian society. But a larger number of the majority (Hindus) now see religion as the core of their identity and support calls for a Hindu rashtra (state). This creates a dilemma for relations between India and other countries.

For example, Pushkar Singh Dhami, the chief minister of the state of Uttarakhand, which borders Tibet and Nepal, was embroiled in controversy for something he posted on Twitter six years ago. The showed a map claiming South and Southeast Asia as part of an ā€œundivided India,ā€ known as Akhand Bharat. In December 2021, an Indian broadcaster the entire region from the Middle East through South and Southeast Asia as belonging to Akhand Bharat, representing the reunification of territories influenced by India during ancient times.

This undermines ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s projection of itself as a pluralist and open society, where minorities were respected, not just tolerated. For six decades after independence in 1947, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s pluralism created a groundswell of respect, goodwill and admiration throughout the free world. Even ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s non-alignment during the Cold War did not interfere with its positive image. Most Americans appreciated Indian democracy and diversity and showed understanding when poverty-ridden India preferred not to side with the United States against the Soviet Union.

Things Have Changed

But things have changed since the end of the Cold War. India has made significant progress in reducing poverty. For two decades, there has been talk of India as a rising power. Americans have expected India to boost its economic growth, modernize its military and play a bigger role in confronting China. In 2010, President Barack Obama relations between India and the United States as the ā€œdefining partnership of the 21^st ³¦±š²Ō³Ł³Ü°ł²ā.ā€

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51³Ō¹Ļ. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

That desire keeps getting thwarted by ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s leadership, particularly Prime Minister Modi and his allies in the BJP. Thus, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s economic growth has slowed down, even before the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and is unlikely to recover quickly. More significantly, India continues to expand trade with China, $125 billion in 2021. This is despite Chinaā€™s military on India along their disputed border. That should lay to rest the expectation of India confronting China anytime soon.

Moreover, the commitment to democracy, human rights and liberal values, which made India a natural Western partner, appear under increasing threat.

Americans who have spent the last few years praising India also need some appraising of India. It might be time to acknowledge that ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s performance has been underwhelming to merit the kind of expectations that have formed the basis of recent US policy.   

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post India Disappoints Its Friends and Admirers appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Such attention to a state election is surprising. West Bengal is not the richest, the largest or the most populous state in India. Yet it has always been an important part of the country. The British started the colonization of the Indian subcontinent by winning the Battle of Plassey in 1757. Calcutta, or Kolkata as it is now called, was the capital of British India for more than a century. Of course, West Bengal did not exist then. Bengal was the name of the British province and included modern-day Bangladesh, Bihar and Orissa then.

History Matters

It was Bengali intellectuals such as Raja Rammohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Swami Vivekananda and Rabindranath Tagore who led the first Indian cultural renaissance. The founder of the Bharatiya Jan Sangh, the forerunner of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), was , a Bengali. , the founding father of Indian communism and the founder of the Mexican Communist Party, was Bengali too. So was Subhas Chandra Bose, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s iconic freedom fighter who defeated Mahatma Gandhiā€™s candidate, in the party elections of the Indian National Congress.

India Is Slowly Evolving Into a Market Economy

READ MORE

Suffice to say, Bengal has played a larger than life role in the political and cultural life in modern India. Yet it is important to remember that this region has always sung to its own tune. Whenever a Delhi-based empire weakened, Bengal was the first province to sound the bugle of independence. Since independence, West Bengal has continued this timeworn tradition. Iconic chief ministers of West Bengal, such as Bidhan Chandra Roy and Siddhartha Shankar Ray, dealt with powerful Indian prime ministers such as Jawaharlal Nehru and his daughter Indira Gandhi as equals.

The first sustained challenge to the Congress party came from West Bengal. It was here that the communists won a historic electoral victory in 1977 and remained in power until 2011. Bengal has thrived on an us-versus-them mindset vis-Ć -vis the national capital, New Delhi. Bengalis believe they have been wronged by New Delhi and have to retain their independence from ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s overbearing capital. In this narrative, West Bengal is the last bastion standing against the invaders from the north, and this is the essence of Bengali pride.

Mamata Banerjee overthrew the longstanding communist government in 2011 and has been in power since. She is a feisty leader whom her admirers call ā€œDidi,ā€ a Bangla word for elder sister. This spinster in Kolkata has taken on the bachelor in New Delhi and won. Fittingly, a doing the rounds on social media adapts Asterix to Indian political lore: ā€œOne small state of Ben-Gaul still holds out against the invaders. And life is not easy for the Gow-Man believers who make the camps of Fascism, Hindutvam and Religious Extrememumā€¦ā€ Other variants spoke about Ben-Gaul holding out against the all-conquering North Indian invaders and their emperor, ā€œModius.ā€

How Ben-Gaul Knocked out the BJP?

Before the election, many deemed Banerjeeā€™s victory in West Bengal unlikely. Two BJP members of parliament confidently told one of these authors that their party was headed to a victory. Banerjeeā€™s All India Trinamool Congress, abbreviated as TMC, was facing local anger. Many the TMC of ā€œmisgovernance ā€” including corruption, nepotism and high-handednessā€” seemedā€ to have put the party in peril. The BJP was promising Bengalis rapid industrialization and high growth after years of economic stagnation.

Banerjeeā€™s right-hand man, Suvendu Adhikari, decamped to the BJP, as did many other key party members. In fact, Adhikari went on to defeat Banerjee in , her own constituency. When the dust settles, it is clear that the BJP had reasons to be confident. Yet ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s ruling party led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi was stung by Didiā€™s ferocious counterpunching and was eventually knocked out. What happened?

First, the BJP did not announce a local chief ministerial candidate. It did not promote any ā€œson-of-the-soil Bengali leaderā€ and even mighty Adhikari was left to play a supporting role to Modi. In ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s largest state of Uttar Pradesh (UP), this strategy had worked. In West Bengal, the strategy backfired. The mother of one of the authors grew up in Kolkata and presciently remarked that Modiā€™s speeches in Hindi would not go down well among a people with immense linguistic pride. Modi did not even use an interpreter to translate his speeches into Bangla. Banerjee portrayed herself as the local Didi and slammed the BJP as outsiders insulting Bengali pride and even identity. It turns out that her narrative resonated with the voters.

Second, the local BJP leaders acted sycophantically. This was not in keeping with the Bengali traditions of local leaders acting as equals of leaders in New Delhi. Bengalis feared that the BJP would reduce West Bengal into vassal status. The historic suspicion of Gujaratis and , the trading castes who once collaborated with the British, also kicked in. Modi and his chief aide, Amit Shah, are both Gujaratis. When local leaders invoked the two national leaders repeatedly as Modiji and Amitji, they offended Bengali sensibilities and triggered old suspicions.

Third, the BJP failed to take into account the legacy of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s first cultural renaissance. This intellectual, social and cultural movement that began in the late 18^th century and continued till the early 20^th century continues to shape the Bengali ethos. It challenged pernicious customs such as caste, dowry and sati, the burning of wives on their husbandā€™s pyres. Inspired by secularist, modernist and humanist ideals, Bengali intellectuals set out to modernize not only Bengali but also Indian society. Middle-class Bengalis have long seen themselves as ā€œbhadralok,ā€ well-mannered persons. Modi himself constantly pays homage to , a charismatic Bengali spiritual figure. Yet he was unable to appeal to the bhadralok legacy of West Bengal. Too many Bengalis saw Modi as peddling a revanchist version of Hinduism that they had fought hard to reform.

A case in point is the BJPā€™s crusade against the consumption of beef. Unlike much of India, meat eating has never been taboo in the Bengali tradition. Even saints have not ordained against eating meat or fish. West Bengal remains one of the few states where beef is freely sold. The BJP used strategies that worked elsewhere in states like UP and Bihar. The party failed to keep its finger on the unique Bengali pulse that beats to a more self-proclaimed liberal rhythm. The caste-based politics by the BJP had limited success, as did the specter of moral policing as under UPā€™s hardline Hindu chief minister, Yogi Adityanath.

Fourth, the BJPā€™s narrative of local Hindus getting subsumed by Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants failed against the TMCā€™s narrative of New Delhi reducing Kolkata to feudatory status. Under Banerjee, Bangladeshi has increased and caused unease among many voters. Yet there is a strong linguistic and regional identity in West Bengal. The partition of 1947 has not cast such a bitter memory as in Punjab. Bangladesh itself broke away from Pakistan in 1971 on linguistic grounds. Bengali pride trumped Hindu identity at least this time around.

Fifth, Banerjee deserves much credit for campaigning with great energy and a clear message. West Bengal has done well in reducing and achieving higher agricultural growth than in the rest of the country even if overall economic growth has been low. Also, Banerjeeā€™s schemes for the rural poor and women have won her much support. Modi has won a majority of the women’s vote because of his last-mile welfare programs. Here, Banerjee won most of the women’s votes in a fundamentally matriarchal society that worships the goddesses Durga and Kali. 

Finally, there is a politically incorrect point that analysts often overlook. One of the authors is Bengali and can attest that bhadralok culture has prized learning over wealth. In part, this might have been a defense mechanism to cope with the poverty the British inflicted on this part of the world. In part, this might be a reaction to the Marwari pursuit of wealth by collaborating with the British. To this day, many Bengalis distrust Gujaratis and Marwaris, whom they see as money-grubbing soulless creatures. The older generation still professes wistful love for the old multinational firms that dominated Kolkata till the 1970s such as Burn Standard, Andrew Yule and Balmer Lawrie. 

Arguably, the Bengali distrust of money has led to low growth in the state. The Bengali diaspora around the world wax lyrical about the preservation of their distinctive ā€œBangaliyanaā€ and how they are culturally different from the rest of India. Yet, unlike Gujaratis, very few Bengalis invest in their home state. They invest in West Bengal only when they return to retirement in Kolkata. Like many cities in Italy, Kolkata is becoming a city of geriatrics with the young leaving in droves for jobs elsewhere.

Even in 2021, Bengalis tend to be employees, not entrepreneurs. They flock to all parts of India and indeed much of the world to work as doctors, lawyers, accountants, academics, administrators and more. In the last few years, startups have taken off in India, including economic backwaters like Kerala and Odisha. Yet West Bengal still lacks any meaningful startup culture.

The BJPā€™s constant championing of development, industrialization and growth might have rubbed off this deep-seated suspicion of entrepreneurship, business and wealth in the Bengali psyche. It did not help that Modiji and Amitji were Gujaratis spouting Hindi in a state that is proud of its distinctness from India. As mentioned earlier, the province of Ben-Gaul has historically been the first to secede from pan-North Indian empires. No wonder Didi beat Modi.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Modiā€™s BJP Lost to Mamataā€™s TMC Because of Bengali DNA appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Although rare, such vocal disagreements are not new in India. However, with its economy in shambles and a spate of downgrades by reputed international agencies on , , and , the foreign affairs discord will further diminish its global stature.

India Is Slowly Evolving Into a Market Economy

READ MORE

Over the decades, India has seen several significant changes in the way it looks at the world. It went from the idealistic Non-Aligned Movement in the 1950s to a close relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Now, India has cozied up to the United States to form the Quad, a strategic partnership to counter China that also includes Japan and Australia. India also flirted with BRICS nations for a brief while to form a coalition of developing countries ā€” Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa ā€” which seems to be dying a quiet death.

All along, India has prided itself in maintaining strategic autonomy. Modiā€™s megalomania made him believe that he would suddenly catapult India to global power status. Unfortunately, his terms in office have left a muddled mess in its wake.

Strong Start

In todayā€™s world of modern warfare and geopolitics, which includes nuclear-armed neighbors in Pakistan and China, Modiā€™s early years saw inane chatter about ā€œAkhanda Bharat,ā€ the ruling Bharatiya Janata Partyā€™s (BJP) term for undivided India. This idea seeks to regain ancient ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s lost glory by spreading Hinduismā€™s influence across South Asia. Barring such misplaced euphoria, Modi rode the wave of international goodwill to regularize the border with Bangladesh.

In western Asia, the Middle East was warming up to Indian influence. Progress was made on a deal to develop Iranā€™s strategic Chabahar port, which would facilitate overland access to Afghanistan. In 2017, Modi became the first Indian prime minister to visit Israel. India has also improved its relationships with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Yet since the 2017 Doklam standoff on the India-China border that Modiā€™s team handled well, Beijing has succeeded in building more infrastructure in the region than New Delhi. Though it could also be considered a strategic tie. Despite US objections, the decades-old India-Russia defense partnership evolved from New Delhi being a technology buyer to the recipient of technology transfer and, finally, a defense research and development partner ā€” an evolution that has continued under Modi.

±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s perpetual see-saw with Pakistan has continued throughout Modiā€™s tenure. His initial outreach by then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to his inauguration in 2014 and a surprise in Lahore a year later quickly fizzled out. In 2016, Pakistan-based militants carried out terrorist attacks near the town of Uri in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. In response, India conducted ā€œā€ across the Line of Control (LoC), which separates the disputed Kashmir region. In 2019, Pakistani militants attacked Indian soldiers in Kashmir. For the first time since 1971, India Pakistani airspace to bomb locations that New Delhi claimed to be terrorist training camps.

The situation between India and Pakistan did not change much. Tensions between the two countries persist. But Modi was reelected in 2019 on the promise of this altered equation of India swiftly and boldly following up on terrorist attacks by Pakistan-based militants.

The reality was much more nuanced. Despite Indian claims and Pakistani counterclaims, international observers concluded that the two cross-border raids by India were not particularly effective. By blocking access to bombed sites, Pakistanā€™s side of the story seemed flimsy. However, Islamabadā€™s ning of an Indian fighter jet in February 2019 and capturing an Indian pilot, who was returned a few days later, appeared to expose holes in ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s defense preparedness. Nonetheless, Modi managed to isolate Pakistan globally and, in 2018, have it included in the gray list of the Financial Action Task Force, the global agency tracking terror financing.

±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s relations with the West did not improve much. In Europe, other than the Rafale warplanes agreement in 2016, the Modi government was unable to make progress on the stalled trade deal with the EU. To be fair, Brussels was busy rebuilding after the Great Recession and the chaos caused by Brexit. Across the Atlantic, there was optimism in the air. During his final term, US President Barack Obama reluctantly embraced Modi. Later, the bonhomie between Donald Trump and Modi could not prevent a trade war.

However, India-US defense and strategic cooperation strengthened as Modi built on the hard work of his predecessors, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh. The rising threat of China also played its part in developing this relationship. The 2015 agreement between Obama and Modi on nuclear liability issues was followed by a bilateral Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement in 2016 and a Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement in 2018. The Quad seems to be a natural extension of this closer US-India partnership, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s Act East policy and the Asian pivot of the United States.

What Changed?

After a reasonably strong start, Modiā€™s India has found itself in a muddle. ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s foreign policy failures closely follow the countryā€™s economic decline since 2017-18 and steadily rising majoritarianism. Trumpā€™s erratic, isolationist policies and ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s widening geopolitical deficit vis-Ć -vis China played a role, but most of Modiā€™s wounds are self-inflicted.

For his narrow domestic agenda and to pass the (CAA), Modi selectively fast-tracked citizenship applications of non-Muslims from the neighboring countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Because it excluded Muslims, even persecuted ones, from these countries, the CAA was criticized and deemed discriminatory.

In doing so, Modi alienated Bangladesh, which is rapidly modernizing and leaving India behind on most human development and economic indicators. Bangladesh swiftly showed India its place through a and demonstrated its desire to walk into Chinaā€™s open arms. Sustained diplomacy over the past year, combined with Modiā€™s to Bangladesh and ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s of COVID-19 vaccines, repaired some of the damage. While cooling down the CAA rhetoric might help, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s weakened economy could still push Bangladesh closer to China.

Under the Trump administration, the US held a tough stance against Pakistan over it called ā€œIslamabad’s failure to take action against militant groups.ā€ Aid from Saudi Arabia also dried up due to strained between Riyadh and Islamabad. As a result, Pakistan is beholden to China. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which passes through Gilgit and Baltistan, a disputed region that both India and Pakistan claim sovereignty over, has Chinaā€™s grip on Pakistan. New Delhi has not approached the recent agreement with Islamabad and the resumption of peace talks from a position of strength. Rather, it is a tacit admission by both weakened parties that peace is mutually beneficial.

Relationships with the Arab world and Israel remain strong, but Modi has lost the plot with Iran and is losing some ground with Russia. Beijing recently a 25-year strategic deal with Tehran and, with its economic clout, is pulling the Kremlin into its sphere of influence. In the pre-Modi era, as a rising economic power, India managed to carve out exceptions for itself to bypass US sanctions against Iran and Russia. Throughout Modi‘s tenure, China has steadily widened the economic and geopolitical gap with India. New Delhiā€™s growing weakness vis-a-vis Beijing has resulted in India kowtowing to the US and losing its strategic autonomy.

Britainā€™s need for trade partners following its departure from the European Union might to a favorable India-UK deal. But a free trade agreement between India and the EU has not seen any significant movement under Modi. US President Joe Biden does not seem to be in any rush to end the his predecessor began with India.

For all the buzz surrounding The Quad, India is the junior partner that has little to offer to others in terms of economic benefits. New Delhi will enhance its strategic and military cooperation with other like-minded democracies, but the other Quad countries are unlikely to intervene if there is a full-scale confrontation between India and China. Unless the Indian economy becomes efficient and tightly integrates itself with Quad countries, its usefulness to other partners will be limited to its size and strategic location.

In the Cold War, the US aligned with autocrats and religious fundamentalists, most notably in China and Pakistan, to defeat the Soviet Union. In the new brewing cold war between Washington and Beijing, Quad countries will pay lip service to building democratic institutional capacity in India. However, if push comes to shove, they will partner with an authoritarian India to counter China, which will serve their narrow self-interests.

India-China Relations

Modiā€™s biggest foreign policy failure is ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s frayed relationship with China. His misplaced overconfidence forced him to reject conventional wisdom and embark on a charm offensive with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Modi ignored the Doklam warning and kept expecting Xi to treat India as an equal, despite the crumbling Indian economy. Meanwhile, China had already reducing New Delhiā€™s sphere of influence through its outreach to ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s neighbors and offers of economic and strategic partnerships. In 2019, Modi scrapped Article 370 of the Indian Constitution to downgrade the state of Jammu and Kashmir to a union territory status. His deputy, Amit Shah, unrealistic claims about taking back the China-controlled Aksai Chin. In response, Xi directly Indian territory in Ladakh for almost a year.

Chinaā€™s strength and ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s decline are best captured through the different ways the countries approach bonds. China is its government bonds internationally at a negative interest rate despite a raging pandemic, ongoing border clashes with India and a 300% debt-to-GDP ratio. Indian bond investors are higher yields even though ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s debt-to-DGP ratio is below 100%.

With a sizable military and tactical superiority, India was unlikely to lose territory to China. However, through emergency during the Ladakh standoff, India paid dearly for Modi and Shahā€™s hubris and prioritizing domestic politics over national interest.

Weakened on the World Stage

Through his speeches, photo-ops with world leaders and tweets, Modi keeps peddling lies and projecting strength to voters. While ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s financial health has deteriorated significantly, the BJP has raised ā€” through anonymous electoral bonds ā€” millions in political donations that fuel Modiā€™s formidable propaganda machine.

The world knows that India is run by a narcissist who has built a false domestic narrative of the countryā€™s global standing to keep winning elections. The West will keep hoping that India gets its act together economically and stops destroying independent institutions so that it becomes a democratic counterweight to China. But that is a battle only Indian voters can lead.

As India warms up to the Quad, where does it go from here? As a new cold war brews, lessons from the past are informative. While the US used China and Pakistan to dismantle the Soviet Union, China cleverly used its leverage to strengthen its economy and authoritarian communist rule. Meanwhile, Pakistan indulged its military and majoritarian religious leadership to destroy itself from within.

With his dismantling of democratic institutions and promotion of religious bigotry, Modi has left Indian foreign policy in doldrums. If voters want it to become a vibrant, democratic counterweight to China and a global player that does justice to its potential, India will have to find a leader who understands that issues like a strong economy, independent judiciary and social stability cannot be divorced from its foreign policy but are integral to it.

*[Updated: June 14, 2021]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post A Modi-fied India Has Weakened on the World Stage appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

The article claims that this initiative constitutes the governmentā€™s response to the foreign tech companiesā€™ refusal ā€œto comply with data and takedown requests from the government related to protests by Indian farmers that have made international headlines.ā€ In other words, the Indian government wishes to control the content that may be allowed to appear on these platforms.

Why Are ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s Farmers Protesting?

READ MORE

But we also learn that it isnā€™t simply the response to a specific event, such as the farmersā€™ protests, but a matter of principle. It involves rewriting the rules of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s democracy. ā€œThe rules would also compel companies to remove content that undermines security, public order and ā€˜decency of morality,ā€™ā€ The WSJ reports.

Todayā€™s Daily Devilā€™s Dictionary definition:

Undermine:

Express ideas or facts that, however sincere truthful, are deemed dangerous because they challenge a governmentā€™s official narrative, the only one permissible for public dissemination.

Contextual note

Since the beginning of the ā€œglobal war on terrorā€ in 2001, governments across the world have regularly appealed to the theme of ā€œnational security,ā€ applying it to oppose anything that might vaguely embarrass them. Prime Minister Modiā€™s government has boldly added the much broader categories of ā€œpublic orderā€ and ā€œdecency of moralityā€ to the mix. States in the past that have actually managed to accomplish that kind of behavioral control have generally been referred to as fascist. While it may seem abusive to apply that term to any democratically elected government today, the similarity of such policies with those practiced by fascist regimes from the past should be obvious. 

Nations that seek to apply such policies today should only deserve to be called ā€œaspirationally fascist.ā€ Given the availability of communication technology to even the humblest among us, the effective repression of expression and enforcement of morality applied to an entire population would immediately undermine any nationā€™s pretension of democracy. We should ask ourselves if Modi is serious in his demands. The difficulty of achieving those goals in the era of global platforms appears to be insurmountable. If it were to succeed, it would imply dismantling one of the givens of the globalized economy and the stoutest pillar of any democracy: the free circulation of ideas.

In its reporting on the same topic, Business Insider on the immediate challenge to the Indian government represented by the farmer protests. It describes the governmentā€™s initiative as an attempt ā€œto pressure the firms into sharing data relatedā€ to the protests. If this is true, the aim would no longer appear to be the mere prevention of unfavorable discourse disseminated through the media. It would imply the harnessing of data produced by these foreign platforms for surveillance purposes. That would then serve the state to crack down on elements suspected of subversion or threatening the public order.

This would seem to contradict the idea that the governmentā€™s aim is simply to censor subversive ideas. Instead, its aim would be to partner with the social platforms to gain access to their data and metadata. This would serve, not to suppress certain ideas, but to suppress the people who express those ideas.

Modi may simply be casting his lines in all directions at the same time, unconcerned with the type of fish he may reel in. It could be compared to the Trumpian foreign policy notion of ā€œmaximum pressureā€ to make the adversary bend. In Modiā€™s case, it is directed at the platforms to convince them to take some action that he finds acceptable ā€” it doesnā€™t really matter which. He appears to be giving his victims the choice between applying his criteria of censorship, which means banning specific content, or quietly handing him the data they collect, which will make it possible for India to identify and punish the culprits. At the same time, by personally threatening the employees of the platform, Modi is showing that he means business, much like Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo when they imposed sanctions on the officials of the International Criminal Court to discourage them from investigating the US and Israel.

The WSJ reveals the deeper ambitions of the Indian government concerning the surveillance of social media. It cites a member of the government who ā€œsaid the rules would require platforms to track and store records of specific messages as they traveled among users.ā€ This would have radical implications, defining user privacy in the use of social platforms as a relic of the past. The threats against employees of the platforms demonstrate the conclusion The WSJ has reached: ā€œThe Indian government appears ready for a fight.ā€

Historical Note

Narendra Modiā€™s government appears to see this as a possible historical turning point. ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s rivalry with China, at least in terms of soft power, has been defined in many peopleā€™s minds as the contest between the worldā€™s two powerful but highly contrasted nations that can be called billionaires (in terms of population). One is an autocracy and the other a democracy. One ambiguously carries the heritage of Western colonization; the other defies it. 

Seen as competition, it has turned out not to be a truly fair fight. China has obviously been progressing exponentially in its economic and military influence, whereas India seems to be handicapped by its confusing democratic institutions and traditions, coupled with its incomprehensible and ungovernable demography. The traditionally conflictual relationship that has prevailed between the two nations has recently been exacerbated not just by ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s unfocused economic orientations ā€” illustrated by the complexity of the debate around the farmersā€™ protests ā€” but also with regard to contested borders, where some recent skirmishes have taken place.

The WSJ article offers a curious hint that Modiā€™s government may be seeking to emulate China: ā€œThe big difference between the earlier history and where we are now is that China has done just fine without those companies.ā€ Coming from Modiā€™s government, this sounds either like an expression of envy or the resolution to mobilize all its forces to go to battle with the social platforms, applying the logic of China which has peremptorily curtailed their freedom to operate.

The fact that Facebook and Twitter are banned in China has enabled the emergence of Chinese non-global equivalents such as Weibo and Renren. Modi would appear to be dreaming that something similar could take place in India, though the governmentā€™s ability to control what happens on such networks as effectively as the Chinese seems more than unlikely. Modi may simply be citing the Chinese case to frighten the American owners of the dominant platforms.

The WSJ presents Modiā€™s gambit as a negotiating stance. The prime minister believes he is in a position to ā€œthreaten the tech companiesā€™ future in a market of more than 1.3 billion people that, since they are locked out of China, is the key to their global growth.ā€ The article cites Jason Pielemeyer, the policy director of the Global Network Initiative, focused on human rights: ā€œIn a market the size of India, itā€™s hard to take the nuclear option, which is to say, ā€˜Weā€™re not going to comply, and if you block us, weā€™ll call your bluff or accept the consequences.ā€™ā€ 

At the same time, The WSJ reveals what may be the truly ā€œnobleā€ underlying motive of the Indians, one we should all applaud. Itā€™s a motive that sounds far more generous and respectful than either threats against American tech companies or the desire to emulate Chinaā€™s policy of social control. ā€œOfficials have said the government wants to protect small Indian businesses, secure user data and allow room for ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s own tech firms to grow,ā€ The Journal reports. 

So, which one is it: the emulation of Chinaā€™s surveillance society and despotic control of the media or a democratic encouragement of small businesses? Because India is a democracy, all that will only become clear in the next election, in 2024. Only three years to wait for the moment of clarity. Isnā€™t that what democracy is all about, waiting for the next election in the hope that the truth will then become manifest?

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devilā€™s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devilā€™s Dictionary on 51³Ō¹Ļ.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Narendra Modiā€™s War With Social Media appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

The post Is Modi’s ā€œMake In Indiaā€ Initiative Working? appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Why Are the Indian and Chinese Economies Decoupling?

READ MORE

As per the , 41.5% of Indians are employed in agriculture. Another are dependent on it. This has implications for Indian politics. Support of farmers is critical to winning elections. Agriculture is to India what the military-industrial complex is to the US. Politicians promise goodies and operate elaborate patronage systems in rural India to secure votes.

The chaos, unruliness and terrible state of Indian cities can partly be explained by the disproportionate doling out of subsidies to rural areas. This leaves little money for urban infrastructure, which is almost invariably ramshackle across the country. Most state governments in India are headed by rural politicians. Even Karnataka, which is home to Bengaluru, the information technology capital of the country, is no exception.

The Biggest Reform Since 1991

With such powerful vested interests, hinting at reform is a tall proposition. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi has done the unthinkable. It has state control over agricultural markets. Opposition parties are protesting because they represent rural power who are deeply upset. By freeing farmers from such power brokers, the Modi government has ushered in a brave new era both for Indian politics and the economy. 

A little bit of context is essential to understand the true implications of this move. Until now, farmers were forced to sell their produce to agricultural produce market committees (). They are dominated by rural politicians and local bigwigs who . For decades, farmers got pitiably low amounts while consumers paid ridiculously high prices. The middlemen who run APMCs pocketed the difference.

At a time when GDP has been shrinking and COVID-19 has been barely tackled, the Modi-led government has introduced the most significant economic reforms since 1991. In that historic year when the US fought Iraq in the Gulf War and the Soviet Union fell, India liberalized its economy and ushered in an era of high growth. The liberalization of agricultural markets will boost farm incomes significantly. With about 60% of Indiaā€™s population on agriculture and allied activities, this move will increase domestic demand and bolster Modiā€™s political base. In addition to this, Modi is also pioneering a scheme inspired by Peruvian economist Hernando De Sotoā€™s work that seeks to better define the of the farmers.

Other Major Measures

Apart from agricultural liberalization, the Modi government has instituted other far-reaching reforms. It has simplified longstanding that held back manufacturing. The Modi government has also curbed the flow of into Indiaā€™s nonprofits. Many of them have been opponents of the Modi government and its policies. Now, these nonprofits stand weakened, leaving the BJP in a stronger position.

Another development has strengthened the BJP. For decades, Bollywood has been a bastion for opponents of the ruling party. Recently, the film industry has been in trouble. The death of a small-town actor has put the spotlight on nepotism and corruption in Bollywood. Some key figures are now under . As a result, Bollywoodā€™s criticism of the BJP has become muted in some quarters but more in others. Bollywoodā€™s target is a section of the that it deems to be sympathetic to the BJPā€™s brand of politics.

Such is the BJPā€™s domination that its ambitious legislative agenda has escaped public scrutiny and effective opposition. In June, these authors sent out a brief that explained how the ruling party needed just seven more members of parliament to control the 245-member Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the parliament. Now, the BJP has achieved that control and its MPs are ramming through reforms their party deems fit.

Foreign correspondents working for big media outlets in New Delhi who frequent the Khan Market have failed to understand the major implications of recent moves. The Modi-led government has embarked on a new chapter. The legislative reforms it is pushing through are ambitious, far-reaching and potentially transformative. While COVID-19 is ravaging the country and China is making threatening moves on its border, India has bet boldly on big reforms. The BJP might reap a rich political harvest as a result.

Yet even as it seems all smooth sailing for the BJP, the ruling party faces a big risk. Voters expect it to govern well. So far, several key reforms and policy initiatives have failed miserably. Indiaā€™s colonial-era bureaucracy has built toilets and opened bank accounts because these did not threaten its power. In contrast, measures that threatened bureaucratic privilege, such as manufacturing reforms or indirect tax reforms, have been quietly scuttled.

If Indiaā€™s powerful bureaucracy tries similar tricks with the latest set of reforms, the ambitious Modi government might finally turn on the purveyors of red tape themselves.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post The Indian Government Is Not Letting a Pandemic Go to Waste appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Why Are the Indian and Chinese Economies Decoupling?

READ MORE

By the 1920s, the INC was firmly in the hands of brown sahibs. Even though Mahatma Gandhi led a mass movement, the Harrow and Cambridge-educated Jawaharlal Nehru came to personify the Congress party. When India became independent in 1947, Nehru emerged as its first prime minister. For a time, he dazzled not only the country but much of the world. Nehruā€™s ruled India for most of its post-independence history and Sonia Gandhi, his grandsonā€™s Italian widow, continues to be the president of the INC.

Narendra Modiā€™s Twin Blows

Narendra Modiā€™s victory in the 2014 election was a tectonic shift in Indian politics. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was back in power after a decade in the opposition. Modiā€™s reelection in 2019 was historic. For the first time, a non-INC party won a second full term since independence in 1947. The BJPā€™s parliamentary tally went up from 282 in 2014 to 303 in 2019. Prime Minister Modiā€™s BJP had knocked down the grand old party of India a second time.

The aura of the Nehru dynasty survived Modiā€™s 2014 victory but has been fading after 2019. It has been an open secret that Sonia has been keeping the seat warm for her son, Rahul Gandhi, who has displayed little aptitude for or interest in politics. The unwritten rule of the Congress party since the days of Indira Gandhi, Nehruā€™s daughter and Rahulā€™s grandmother, has been that the leadership is the monopoly of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s first family.

Naturally, such a situation irked many upcoming Congress leaders. In the past, the likes of Mamata Banerjee and Kalvakuntla Chandrashekhar Rao left the INC. Both have created their own regional parties and are chief ministers of important states. For the first time, a mass rebellion, instead of an isolated revolt, seems to be brewing. No less than 23 senior INC leaders wrote to Sonia asking for a ā€œfull-time leadership,ā€ a euphemism for a leader other than Rahul. 

Despite leading the INC from one disaster to another, Rahul has been deemed the uncontested successor of his mother. For years, many people in the party have murmured about Rahulā€™s ineptitude but have accepted him as a monarch. Finally, the Congress leaders have done the unthinkable by asking the Nehru dynasty to hand over the reins of power to someone else. 

Retribution has been swift. The INC high command has dismissed calls for introspection and leading leaders from posts. One of them is Ghulam Nabi Azad, a top Muslim leader who was once chief minister of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. Azad has been a loyal servant of Congress for decades and is known to be a clever political strategist. The high command purged other senior leaders like Mallikarjuna Kharge, Ambika Soni and Motilal Vohra. A veteran INC leader, Sanjay Jha, a former spokesperson of the party, appropriately , ā€œLast night the deck chairs on the Titanic were rearranged.ā€

Rahul Gandhi Reacts

Even as INC leaders have been raising the banner of revolt against Rahul, Nehruā€™s heir has been attacking the ruling BJP over its China policy. He has questioned the Modi governmentā€™s border management and , ā€œNarendra Modi is Surrender Modi.ā€ Such a charge is incendiary but has not set mass emotion alight. Part of the reason is that few take Rahul Gandhi seriously. As the BJP pointed out, the INC leader had not attended a single meeting of the parliamentary committee on defense.

Recently, Rahul finally showed up and launched a against the army by asking ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s chief of defense staff, General Bipin Rawat, why soldiers were served a diet different from their officers. Tilting at the windmills, Rahul seemed to be taking on the injustice of food discrimination in the army, which leads to soldiers eating an inferior diet. Rawat robustly refuted the charge of such food discrimination, pointing out that there is no difference in quality or quantity of food served to soldiers and officers. As per Rawat, differences in diet are based on the dietary preferences of soldiers and officers.

Rahul has a point in his line of questioning. Like all of Indiaā€™s pre-independence institutions, the Indian army retains a colonial hangover. Officers often act as brown sahibs. Their medium of communication is English, while their troops communicate in Hindi or their regional languages. Officers tend to come from urban areas while soldiers have rural backgrounds. While it is true that discrimination exists, it has decreased over time as India has democratized. Officers increasingly hail from lower-middle classes, not posh social echelons. Affluent Indians pack off their children to cushy environs of Harvard or Yale, not icy Himalayan heights on Indiaā€™s borders.

The challenge with Rahul is that his party is utterly out of touch with the grassroots. Like Marie Antoinette who liked to get a taste of rural life by milking cows and playing the shepherdess, Rahul enjoys tilting at the windmills of injustice for the common man. Some of it is plain political theater but part of it seems genuine. The irony of Rahulā€™s situation is that he fails to realize how, like the ill-fated French queen, he represents the very injustice he tilts against.

Sadly for Rahul, the Nehru dynasty is still with Indiaā€™s disastrous defeat in 1962. Nehruā€™s acquiescence of the Chinese conquest of Tibet, his disastrous choice of a hardline, pro-communist defense minister and his bungling of negotiations with the then Chinese premier, Zhou Enlai, have left a dark stain on his legacy. Since 1962, the INC has consistently followed a soft policy on China and shied away from confrontation. Therefore, Rahulā€™s attacks on the Modi government for being soft on China are out of character for both his party and his family.

A Question of Competence and Loyalty

There is another wrinkle in the narrative. After Rajiv Gandhiā€™s death in 1991, the INC has lurched leftward under his widow, Sonia. A part of this lurch since the 1990s has been to go very soft on Pakistan and even China. The overriding assumption has been that the resulting peace dividend was worth any short-term pain or military strategic setback. Under Sonia, Congress has encouraged left-leaning parties in the near-neighborhood. In Nepal, this pro-democracy policy has led to the election of a pro-China communist party. 

Nothing captured the utter incompetence of the INC on national security than the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. The party neither acted resolutely nor swiftly when the attack was on. It meted out no punishment for the Pakistan-based terrorist group that carried out the attack. The INC-led government under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh continued its soft policy against Pakistan. In contrast, the Modi-led BJP government launched an airstrike on Balakot in Pakistani territory after the Pulwama attacks in 2019. The Modi government also removed the Nehru-era Article 370 that gave a special status to Jammu and Kashmir, earning the prime minister much political capital on national security.

Even if Rahul and other Congress leaders were to make valid points on Modiā€™s defense or foreign policies, Indians would not trust them. Today, the Nehru dynasty is seen as weak, vacuous and ineffectual. Many deem its policies to be appeasement. A belated focus on Nehruā€™s mistakes on Kashmir and Tibet is riling up increasing numbers of Indians. It is for this reason that the INC is trying desperately hard to paint Modi as the new Nehru and take the sheen off his prestige on national security, a key reason for the BJPā€™s reelection in 2019. 

For the INC, the best scenario would be ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s humiliation at the hands of China. The party could then say that Modi and the BJP had turned out to be no better than Nehru and the INC. In any case, the Congress party is beating a relentless drum that Modi has appeased China, lost Indian territory and lacks the courage for a fight. The left-leaning media, both at home and abroad, is singing from the same hymn sheet.

In interviews for The Wire, Karan Thapar, a brown sahib dressed in a bow tie, has constantly attacked the Modi government on one ground or another. There are plenty of reasons to question and indeed criticize the government. However, Thapar clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding about basic facts. More importantly, he typifies a strong bias against the BJP in general and Modi in particular because of ideological reasons and class consciousness. As a result, few pay attention to ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s anglicized, left-leaning, Delhi-based media. Such is the publicā€™s loss of trust in this clique that their attacks might be boosting Modi instead of damaging him.

Another unexpected phenomenon might be boosting the Modi government. Many Indians suspect that the INC is actively leveraging its contacts in American media and the Democratic Party to push the narrative of the BJP as a Hindu fascist party that is repressing Kashmiris, marginalizing Muslims and wrecking the economy. At a time when nationalism is rising, such a perception is damaging. 

The American media often forgets that Sonia Gandhi was an Italian before her marriage. For many Indians, her rise and continued occupation of the top post in the Indian National Congress is nothing short of a national humiliation. Senior BJP leaders have alleged that Rahul Gandhi is known as in Italy and the UK. Popular sentiment suspects that American and indeed Western media backs the INC and criticizes the BJP, in part, because Sonia is European. The loyalty of the Nehru dynasty to the Indian nation is increasingly in question.

For a party founded on the principles of self-determination and self-rule, a perception that its European-born leader is beseeching her foreign allies to interfere in ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s domestic politics of foreign interference outrages many Indians. For them, it reflects the INCā€™s decay from a virtuous party of the freedom struggle under Mahatma Gandhi to a degenerate one under Sonia. This perception of political, moral and ideological bankruptcy is proving toxic to the INC. The idea that it is placing loyalty to the Nehru dynasty over loyalty to the nation could prove fatal.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Why Is ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s Opposition Congress Party in Crisis? appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Water Becomes a Weapon in Chinaā€™s Geopolitical Chess

READ MORE

Although no shots were fired, stones were thrown and fistfights broke out. They resulted in injuries to 11 soldiers from both sides. Numerous fights also occurred in the following weeks, with troops stationed in disputed territories accusing the other side of trespassing. US President Trump offered to mediate but this was rejected.   

This is not the first China-India border conflict. In 2017, both sides  each other in Doklam Plateau ā€” a tri-border area between India, China and Bhutan ā€” for two months, almost triggering an armed conflict. Such tensions between the two countries have existed for over seven decades. They triggered the Sino-Indian War in 1962. Today, China claims and refers to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh as Southern Tibet. On the other hand, India sees the China-controlled Aksai Chin as its territory. Since 1962, both sides have signed a series of agreements and agreed to respect the Line of Actual Control that separates the countries.

Can War Break Out Again?

Despite rising tensions, the current standoff is unlikely to turn into a direct military confrontation for a number of reasons.

First, the border conflict could simply be a means of relieving leaders of both countries from rising internal pressure. The worsening global economic conditions and the ongoing China-US trade war no longer enable Beijing to rely on rapid growth as the sole source of the regimeā€™s security. Instead of relying on its domestic economic performance, China is showcasing its strength by defending its territorial claims.

Therefore, Beijing has been more aggressive not only in the China–India border conflict but also elsewhere. In recent weeks, China has deployed more troops to the  and more jets to the . It has also passed a national security law to tighten its grip on Hong Kong.

Second, Beijing might be calculating that India is too occupied with fighting the COVID-19 disease to wage a border conflict with China.

Third, China might just be showing off its armyā€™s capabilities while, at the same time, delivering a political message to India not to get too close to the US. Since the 2017 Doklam border standoff, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been moving closer to the Americans. India has agreed to expand its  in advanced defense items and become part of the US manufacturing supply chain. The South Asian giant has also decided to Chinese companies from taking over domestic businesses. If India moves closer to the US, this could hamper Chinaā€™s infrastructure development in South Asia, including the disputed economic corridor that  China to Pakistan. 

Fourth, the border conflict might be serving Modiā€™s domestic political needs in addition to Chinese President Xi Jinpingā€™s, but a full-blown would serve neither. The novel coronavirus, which causes the COVID-19 disease, has hit India hard and the government has been criticized for its response. At the time of publishing, there were over confirmed cases of COVID-19 in India.

Before the outbreak of the coronavirus, many ethnic groups and the opposition organized nationwide protests against the countryā€™s new citizenship law, which allows persecuted non-Muslim minorities to become Indian nationals. Furthermore, since India revoked Kashmirā€™s semi-autonomous status in August 2019, the disputed territory has been under lockdown. The border issue diverts citizensā€™ attention conveniently. Also, India considers this a strategic opportunity to push China to recognize the current status of the border, given that it is under immense international pressure. India sees China in no condition to start a war.

Fifth, both sides may be jostling to gain favorable strategic positions on the border, but they know that the costs of starting a war outweigh its potential benefits for both of them. These two nuclear powers have enough deterrence capacities against each other. Besides, a conflict with India would weaken Chinaā€™s focus on meeting key security challenges in the South China Sea. At the same time, India recognizes its military inferiority and inability to win an outright war. In 2019, Chinaā€™s national defense budget was , almost three times that of Indiaā€™s $71.1 billion.

What Happens Next?

So far, both sides have relied on many communication channels and constant dialogue to prevent the escalation of violence. In early June, top Chinese and Indian generals held high-level talks with each other. 

Modi has declared that India is open to a diplomatic solution. India has increased its number of troops at the border and issued a  about Chinaā€™s hindrance of Indiaā€™s normal patrolling patterns, but the rhetoric has been relatively restrained. China has declared the overall to be ā€œstable and controllable.ā€ It has also announced that the sides would make use of ā€œunimpededā€ channels to resolve their issues.

Such statements indicate that both countries have no desire for any further escalation of the current border conflict and that war is unlikely.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Why India and China Are Fighting Right Now appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Bringing Stranded Workers in Indian Cities Back to Their Villages

READ MORE

Modi might have been decisive in announcing a lockdown, but Indiaā€™s health care system is utterly unprepared for the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19. As of April 6, India had reported less than 4,300 infected cases and tested only 130,000. This amounted to a mere 93 tests per million and only three cases per million, one of the lowest ratios in the world. These numbers have since changed, but the ratios remain low and have become the subject of .

Little Rationale to Modiā€™s Actions

A century ago, Modi’s response to COVID-9 may have been simply fine. The world had few tools to deal with pandemics. A blanket approach, a bit like carpet bombing during wartime, seemed sensible. Today, our knowledge has evolved, and a more sophisticated response is possible, even though we are still learning about the disease.

Even from a century-old perspective, one aspect of Modiā€™s response was little short of comic. The idea of a peopleā€™s curfew was a cruel joke on the people because it was, in reality, mandatory. He did little but prove to the world that his diktat could bring the wheels of the nation to a grinding halt.

In the past, social activist Anna Hazare brought India to a halt in his anti-corruption movement in 2011. George Fernandes, a socialist politician, did the same in a different way. As the leader of the railway workers union, he brought trains to a standstill in 1974. His slogan, ā€œ,ā€ galvanized workers agitating for better pay and working conditions. Purportedly, this strike gave Indira Gandhi the idea of imposing a state of emergency on the country in 1975. Each of these actions could be said to have a rationale.

In contrast, Modiā€™s ā€œpeopleā€™s curfewā€ lacked rhyme or reason. Any effective quarantine had to be for the duration of the lifecycle of the virus. Anything less would have been meaningless and futile. And just clapping for anyone, including health workers, without giving them adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) or resources, was childish. Using the policemen who do not consider their paymasters ā€” the citizens ā€” to be any better than street dogs to impose the curfew was little short of sadistic.

Considering Modi had a few days to think through the challenges of the COVID-19 crisis, I would have expected him to come up with a strategic plan. Instead, on March 24, he sprang on the nation a complete lockdown, demonstrating that his government had lost all policymaking instincts necessary to run a nation.

Since March 24, I have been examining successive gaffes of Modi’s time in power since 2014. One policy announcement after another has been the governmentā€™s modus operandi. Little attention was paid to implementation. Most announcements have thus remained mere announcements and few policies have achieved even 50% of the targets he set for them.

Part of a Familiar Pattern

Modiā€™s COVID-19 policy follows the same pattern of his time in office. It was simply not thought through. It had no reference point. It had no understanding of what it takes to achieve the targets he wanted to set. It was a knee-jerk reaction that completely failed to anticipate the consequences of its action.

A reasonable policy response would have involved stopping the virus from being imported from outside the country, stopping the infection from spreading within the country, treating the patients who were identified and preparing for a surge of cases. On February 4, the Modi government stopped all travel from China to India, four days after the US did the same. By then, some asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 might have already entered India and it may have taken four to five weeks before they were identified.

India began tightening restrictions on travel from outside India by the end of the second week of March. This might have been a little late. More importantly, not creating facilities for testing all incoming passengers was unwise. After all, anyone coming from high-risk countries ā€” Indian citizens and foreign ones ā€” presented a risk. The Modi government displayed much ineptness in the early days in managing the fast-emerging pandemic.

Under any administration, creating testing facilities for travelers from all high-risk countries would have been a top priority. Enforcing quarantines on those infected or suspected of being infected was the next step. Making tests available to anyone suspected of symptoms, minimizing domestic travel and ensuring the provision of basic services to citizens were other important actions.

Instead of locking down the whole country, keeping a watch on where cases of the coronavirus surfaced and quarantining the local inhabitants as well as screening all may have been potentially at risk was the more sensible course of action. Letting essential services run, including trains, buses and planes at a certain basic level, was preferable to a complete lockdown. The people who were traveling could have been tested and traced.

As in South Korea, India could have asked its people not to leave home without a mask and disposable gloves, as well as emphasized that they wash their hands frequently to limit the spread of infection. An ideal solution could have been to design a face-shield, transparent, light and reusable that stayed fastened to the face since the real danger in this comes from touching the face. That could have become India’s contribution to handling a crisis such as COVID-19 innovatively.

Instead, Modi announced a draconian lockdown, giving Indians a laughably short window of a couple of hours to prepare. People had no time to adjust to the new realities, reminding everyone of the 2016 demonetization fiasco that saw banknotes abruptly withdrawn from circulation. His policy failed to account for issues that inevitably surfaced later. How would the vulnerable access medical care or get medicines? How would people, especially the poor, get food?

Modi put the mythical Lakshman Rekha ā€” a line that one cannot transgress ā€” at everyoneā€™s doorstep, inflicting much misery on his people. The people who are hurting the most are daily wage workers. They buy their food with daily earnings and have little or no savings to live by. Thousands of them set out to walk hundreds of kilometers home. En route, the police and district authorities sprayed them with chemicals to disinfect them, treating them worse than animals. Some died on the way.

As per a much-quoted adage, there are many ways to skin a cat. No policy solution works perfectly against COVID-19. However, people in a democracy can expect the government to work for them, at least in a crisis. The government must treat its people ā€” rich or poor, weak or strong, young or old, regardless of their religion or caste, their origins in a village or a city ā€” with respect. Staffed by incompetent sycophants, the Modi government has miserably failed to do so.

The government could easily have kept the basic economic infrastructure running. Of course, it would operate at a lower activity level. Instead, the police beat first and ask questions later. Even delivery personnel of essential services like food and medicine are not spared. Modi has been in power for more than 70 months out of the 70 years India has been a republic. He is a charismatic Pied Piper who won his election promising good governance. Yet he is now running the worst government in ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s post-independence history.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Narendra Modi Is Fighting COVID-19 With Little Logic appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

At that point, Forbes assumed that Bezos would seek a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to seal the deal.

Here is todayā€™s 3D definition:

Pledge:

A legal and risk-free bribe in the form of promise, with no direct cost involved, of future action that enables powerful, rich people or institutions to control nations, regions or populations that are less rich and powerful

Contextual Note

The population of India finds itself in a familiar situation as a privately-owned overseas benefactor generously proposes to take over its economy and eventually ā€” with the help of the companyā€™s home nation ā€” its political organization. The British ran India (and their other colonies) for three centuries by pledging to stimulate the local economy while personally rewarding cooperative local leaders and offering a range of services to reinforce their authority. 

The Indian people appear to be aware of the historical pattern and have massively expressed their defiance. Bezos appeared to be counting on the support of Modi, whom he hoped to meet on his trip to India. The prime minister is clearly the one person with the power to make his ambitious project work. Modi might even have an interest in making it work, since, without outside help, he may find it challenging to realize his own electoral pledge to his people to nearly double the GDP of India in his second term.

Forbes comments that ā€œthe goodwill from Bezos toward India is necessary,ā€ citing the atmosphere of defiance in India and possible revolt against everything Amazon represents. Among other evidence of popular resistance, which includes restrictive laws on foreign commerce, Forbes mentions the fact that ā€œa trade organization representing millions of small and medium-sized business owners organized protests in 300 cities across the country against Amazon to coincide with the billionaireā€™s visit.ā€

The Forbes article was published on Wednesday and sounded upbeat. Thursday offered a surprise, however, asthe Indian journal Swarajya : ā€œIn what appears to be a sensational turn of events, Prime Minister Narendra Modi seems to have given a cold shoulder to the world’s richest man.ā€ Bezosā€™ projected meeting with Modi has been canceled.

It may sound as if the popular will is having its effect. But in a further twist that tells us a lot about Modiā€™s often hyperreal politics, we learn that ā€œthis cold shouldering has little to do with the ongoing probe on Amazon by the Competition Commission of India and more to do with the critical stand of the Washington Post – owned by Bezos – against the Indian government.ā€ Swarajya noted that The Postā€™s ā€œeditorial stand has been extremely criticalā€ of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government.

Others have claimed that the ā€œIndian government may have canceled the meeting with Bezos to calm fears among Indian traders,ā€ which, if true, would mean that Modi is sensitive to pressure from the people, at least until that pressure dies down. The Indian media platform Inc42 that one reason is an immediate electoral concern: ā€œWith Delhi elections coming up next week, the [BJP] ā€˜doesnā€™t want to give political [ammunition] to the opposition.ā€™ā€

According to Indiaā€™s Economic Times, some officials who understand how pledges work believe there is a dual risk with the Amazon operation: The investment of even $1 billion may fail, with no serious damage to Amazon. If it doesnā€™t fail, it will be thanks to Amazonā€™s “predatory pricing or … unfair trade practices.” These are practices that could upset the entire retail sector of a nation with a population four times that of the US. Union Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal provided: ā€œAmazon was not doing a favour to the country by the investments and questioned how the online retailing major could incur such ā€˜bigā€™ losses but for its predatory pricing.ā€

Historical Note

Founded at the very beginning of the 17th century, the East India Company created the classic model for asymmetric economic relations between the East and West. The company was incorporated by royal charter on December 31, 1600. Encyclopaedia Britannica summarizes its over the next three centuries: ā€œStarting as a monopolistic trading body, the company became involved in politics and acted as an agent of British imperialism in India from the early 18th century to the mid-19th ³¦±š²Ō³Ł³Ü°ł²ā.ā€

Jeff Bezos may see himself as a latter-day . The Forbes article quotes him on his vision of India and why he feels itā€™s essential for Amazon to be part of the countryā€™s rise to dominance. ā€œI predict that the 21st century is going to be the Indian century,ā€ he said. ā€œIn this 21st century, the most important alliance is going to be the alliance between India and the United Statesā€”the worldā€™s oldest democracy and the worldā€™s largest democracy.ā€ Some Indians suspect a more general reason: that Amazon wants to have a cut of everything thatā€™s bought and sold in the subcontinent. 

Bezos envisions a two-nation team of democracies that are currently led by two of the least democratic heads of state in modern history: Donald Trump and Narendra Modi. As a geopolitical thinker rather than a simple businessman, Bezos may be right in thinking that an alliance with India would be the only viable strategy for shoring up the declining US empire and responding to the rise of China. But India knows what alliances with powerful English-speaking nations amount to.

Furthermore, Modi may have some specific reasons for not seeking an alliance with Trump. A new book by two Washington Post journalists recounts a between Modi and Trump, in which the US president blurted out, ā€œItā€™s not like youā€™ve got China on your border.ā€ Modi was so disturbed by Trumpā€™s ignorance that he didnā€™t bother to parry this with: Why do you talk so much about a wall? Itā€™s not like youā€™ve got Mexico on your border. A Trump aide surmised that Modi was thinking: ā€œThis is not a serious man. I cannot count on this man as a partner.ā€

In a very real sense, Bezos is both better informed than Trump and more powerful than Modi in global influence and sheer clout. Modi has certainly understood that. But it may take more than $1 billion to convince him to let the fox into the henhouse. Even the appeal to Modiā€™s mercantilism by evoking a figure of $10 billion-worth of exported Indian goods shouldnā€™t convince a leader whoā€™s now forced to think in the trillions after pledging to double the Indian GDP. And, of course, most Indians remember what happened when the British not only pledged but actively opened the world market to Indian goods.

Swarajya concluded its article with this enigmatic observation: “Modi 2.0 is not the same as Modi 1.0 and the world must come to terms with it.” India itself has been waking up to this new reality as Modi 2.0 seems intent on pushing his communitarian agenda as far as his reach will take him. This has led to bigger problems than a deal with Amazon might solve.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Jeff Bezos Plays the Cowboy With the Indians appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

360Ā° Context: Kashmir Explained ā€” Why India and Pakistan Fight Over It

READ MORE

While there is no denying the occurrence of human rights violations in Kashmir, including a communications lockdown, a curfew and the detainment of political leaders, there has been a lack of discussion about the volatile, historical context in the state and the genuine reasons for Indiaā€™s undeniably disturbing lockdown.

Firstly, the crucial fact that Article 370 was a granting special autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir in the Indian Constitution has rarely found mention. India has not attempted to redraw any external boundaries. It has merely removed a complex and temporary article within its own constitution.

Since August 5, India has stressed that its is to increase economic investment and development in Jammu and Kashmir and to integrate the state into the rest of India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also that Jammu and Kashmir will not remain a union territory for long and its statehood will be restored at some point in the future. Meanwhile, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khanā€™s loose, absurd and disturbing talk of genocide in Kashmir, all whilst ironically refusing to recognize the state of Israel and fueling anti-Semitic sentiment, only brings serious dishonor to victims of genocide. The means can be rightfully questioned, but the move by India with its consistent language of development and progress at least appears well-intentioned.

A Diverse State

International media have not adequately explained the complex and diversity of the region. Muslim-majority Kashmir makes up only 15% of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, yet it comprises 53.9% of the population. The rest of the population is Hindu or Buddhist Ladakhi.

It is hypocritical when global media outlets unabashedly, yet understandably, criticize alleged majoritarianism in Modiā€™s India but apply a majoritarian lens to view Jammu and Kashmir. As Atul Singh and Manu Sharma state in an article on 51³Ō¹Ļ, there is often little mention of the ethnic cleansing and mass exodus of Kashmiri Pandits who, in the 1990s, were driven out of their homes in fear of persecution. This is also the case with Buddhist Ladakhis who have faced systematic by Kashmiri Muslims. Hindus and Buddhist Ladakhis have thus the removal of Article 370, as well as the decision to divide the state into the two union territories of Jammu and Kashmir as well as Ladakh to allow for more effective administration and governance based on the individual needs of the territories.

The removal of Article 370 also allows for the of laws focused on the rights of minorities and women in Jammu and Kashmir. The regionā€™s special status previously had allowed it to retain its own laws, many of which were discriminatory to women and minorities. For instance, if a woman from Jammu and Kashmir married a man from another state, she lost the right to own property there. The same did not apply to a male resident of the state who married someone from outside.

A well-known is that of Charu WaliKhanna, a Kashmiri Hindu lawyer, who was forced to flee the state and later wanted to purchase a home there but couldnā€™t because she was no longer a permanent resident and was married to a non-Kashmiri. Along with another Kashmiri woman who was a permanent resident but married to a non-resident, WaliKhanna filed petitions and challenged these laws in 2017 on the grounds that they were counter to ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s inheritance laws, which grant women equal rights.

The Lockdown of Kashmir

With regard to the lockdown in Kashmir, a country like India with its largely benign and responsible on the global stage will hardly risk damaging it with unnecessary actions. The crackdown was not conducted out of the blue, but rather due to longstanding security risks in the state.

During a recent US congressional hearing on human rights, Alice Wells, the US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia, repeatedly used the word ā€œterroristsā€ and how activities across the Line of Control ā€” the boundary separating Indian-controlled and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir ā€” have fermented violence and destabilization, thereby emphasizing that cross-border terrorism has been central to Kashmir. Wells used language that big global media outlets like the BBC, Al Jazeera and The New York Times do not use in the Indian context. Historically, they often refrain from using the term “terrorists” when attacks occur in India, including Mumbai in 2008. Instead, these outlets describe attackers as ā€œmilitantsā€ and/or ā€œfighters.ā€

Although the lockdown and curfew have been , it is primarily the internet clampdown that is still ongoing. This is due to the risk of Pakistani terrorist groups and Kashmiri militants weaponizing the internet to mobilize people and foment unrest.

That the internet can be easily mobilized, manipulated and misused in the hands of the wrong people hardly needs a mention. In 2016, after militant Burhan Wani, commander of Hizb-ul Mujahideen, was killed in an encounter with Indian security forces, the exploitation of social media by online groups to capitalize on the situation led to one of the most violent periods in the history of Kashmir. As Parjanya Bhatt of the Observer Research Foundation , ā€œ[S]ocial media strategies in Kashmir have been morphed into a tradition where false narratives create heroes out of fallen terrorists and radicalise new recruits as icons.ā€

State-Sponsored Terror

But even as India attempts to normalize the situation in Kashmir, militancy is a threat and people are refraining from venturing out and opening their shops due to intimidation. International media outlets consistently focus on the thousands of Indian troops that are deployed in the region, making it the most militarized zone in the world.

Yet the news media rarely focus on India as the principal victim of Pakistani state-sponsored terrorism. The primary reason for the presence of these soldiers is the constant threat of Pakistani terrorists infiltrating and killing civilians in India. Terrorists, some of whom have been neutralized by Indian forces, have numerous civilians, including apple traders and migrant laborers. There have also been disturbing of Pakistani attempts to smuggle hundreds of terrorists into Kashmir and that, despite the communications lockdown, Pakistan has devised innovative of connecting with terrorist groups.

Anyone who understands the nature of the Pakistani state, including its capability for state-sponsored terrorism its to ā€œbleed India with a thousand cuts,ā€ knows that the security risk to India will likely persist. Veronica Ekelund, an analyst at the Amsterdam-based think tank EFSAS, has heavily a report by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on Jammu and Kashmir for its omission of Pakistani state-sponsored terrorism and its consequences, and for ā€œnarrowing the conflict to a two-year period, starting with Burhan Waniā€™s death in 2016.ā€

American scholar Christine Fair who has spent decades studying the region has repeatedly that unless Pakistan cracks down on terrorists operating within its borders, it is impossible for India to sort out its Kashmir problem. The fact that Prime Minister Khanā€™s ascent to leadership has been by the Pakistan army ā€” the very entity that jihadists against India as part of its decades-long proxy war ā€” does not help.

Transnational Terrorism

Hizb-ul Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad are just some of the groups sponsored by Pakistan that operate in the Kashmir Valley. Besides these, there is also the infiltration of transnational terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State (IS) through their affiliates, such as Ansar Ghazwat-ul Hind and al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent. Rather than azadi (freedom) for Kashmir, these groups want an establish an Islamic caliphate governed by sharia law.

Mohammed Sinan Siyech, a research analyst at the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research, how these ideologies could become more entrenched in Kashmir. In fact, Burhan Wani, the militant that acquired celebrity status after being killed by Indian armed forces in 2016, did not want the state to accede to either India or Pakistan. Instead, his , like that of so many other youngsters in Kashmir, was an IS-style caliphate.

In May, IS announced its new province in Kashmir called ā€œWilayah of Hind.ā€ James M. Dorsey how Kashmir is becoming a battleground for Middle Eastern rivals Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Siddharthya Roy, in an article for , mentions the emergence of the new Islamic State brand of terrorism in Kashmir. This raises questions of the kind of state an independent Kashmir could be. It is clear why India does not want the risk of an Islamic caliphate on its doorstep.

Political Corruption

As if all this was not enough, there have been serious governance issues in Jammu and Kashmir, including endemic by political classes. A study carried out by researcher Ayjaz Wani of the Observer Research Foundation found that for nearly 64% of people in the Kashmir Valley, a lack of governance has been a huge factor that has led to instability and revolts. In a separate article, Wani that ā€œthe state witnessed an unending spell of arrested development owing to a sluggish, inefficient and corrupt administration,ā€ which ā€œcreated pervasive anguish and frustration among the masses, especially the Valleyā€™s youth.ā€

In August, Home Minister Amit Shah that 14,255 rupees ($200) per capita was allocated to Jammu and Kashmir compared to over 3,681 rupees per capita for the national average, most of which ended up in the pockets of corrupt, local politicians.

The special status granted to the state by Article 370 exacerbated these problems. As Kashmiri scholar Aijaz Ashraf Wani , the ā€œgovernance-deficit has [spurred] the conflict and the conflict has fuelled the governance-deficit.ā€ Whether the detainment of local politicians was necessary certainly warrants questions. But the very least the international media can do is explain the preexisting situation in the state.

Old approaches have not achieved results in Jammu and Kashmir. However questionable its actions may be, India is using a fresh approach to deal with the Kashmir issue by attempting to rid the state of extremist influence and usher in an era of peace and development. The removal of Article 370 allows Indians from other states to invest in Jammu and Kashmir. It also eliminates hindrances that did not allow the region to integrate with the rest of India and instead pushed it into the arms of extremists.

Any reportage on this highly-complex situation without devoting adequate attention to the volatile, preexisting conditions provides a misleading and incomplete picture of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s actions. News requires context, and stories that detail what is happening but do not pay enough attention to why it is happening is bound to give a skewed view of events. International media coverage has done exactly this: It has failed to contextualize the Kashmir issue and provide a more nuanced and deeper understanding of the situation.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post How International Media Cover Kashmir appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Modiā€™s clever campaign strategy diverted the votersā€™ focus toward his larger-than-life personality while playing dangerously with growing nationalist and populist sentiments among the Hindu majority. He projected an image of strong-man leadership that even non-militant Hindus are ready to admire. This has permitted him to reinforce his political power both in the national government and across a majority of states. Like Donald Trump in the US and Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, Modi has a keen sense of how to exploit the contemporary mechanics of democracy by turning an election into a popularity contest that typically rewards powerful personalities.

Like Emmanuel Macron in France, who came out of nowhere in 2017 to profit from the self-annihilating tendencies of the two dominant parties that had controlled the state for nearly 60 years, Modi can also thank the continuing ineptitude of the traditionally dominant Congress party leaders for paving his way to electoral victory and now an easy consolidation of his power over the worldā€™s largest democracy.

Modi has thus avoided the plight traditionally forecast in a democracy for political leaders who fail to produce strong economic results. Most observers believe they will be punished by the electors. Indeed, many pundits predicted Modiā€™s defeat in this yearā€™s election for that very reason. But Modi managed to compensate for the failures of a flagging economy by imposing his personality and stoking the belief that, through sheer will and personal strength, he could set India on the right track.

Milan Vaishnav, the author of the Foreign Policy article, delves into the complexity of Modiā€™s performance, his decisions and the current trends. He finally aligns with the traditional wisdom in predicting a backlash as soon as Indians realize that the economy is in the doldrums and Modi lacks a magic wand.

Modi has managed to square the circle by simultaneously adopting a manifestly liberal economic approach that contrasts with the socialist tradition established by the Congress party, while also playing to his Hindutva base that sees the national identity closely linked to the Hindu religion and has consistently shown that it is ā€œhighly suspicious of liberalizing economic reform.ā€ Vaishnav warns that, while ā€œsetting its economic agenda, the [ruling Bharatiya Janata Party] has to be careful not to alienate the Hindu nationalist base that has powered its electoral triumphs.ā€

Here is todayā€™s 3D definition:

Alienate:

Create a bad impression by revealing a truth that, so long as it remains concealed or effectively disguised, will ensure the loyalty of those who would object to that truth

Contextual Note

Narendra Modi is hardly unique in adopting a strategy designed for a solid base of voters who are not necessarily representative of the nation and whose interests do not necessarily coincide with the economic interests of the nation as a whole. Donald Trump applied this strategy in the US to win the presidential election in 2016.

The secret to success lies in deciding which segments of the population the candidate accepts to alienate. If Modiā€™s minority Hindutva base in India ā€” or the nationalist and racist base of Trump in the US ā€” is powerful enough to provide the energy for a successful campaign, alienating an identifiable minority that most voters donā€™t care enough about can be a winning strategy. In an increasingly unstable geopolitical landscape, politicians can count on the passive sense of nationalism felt by the undefined and politically unmotivated mass of voters concerned primarily by their own survival and prosperity.

With both Modi and Trump, the effort to appease the base, to ensure that it will not be alienated becomes a major strategic goal. Modi can thus play on the Hindu majorityā€™s hostility toward a Muslim minority and even initiate dangerous geopolitical actions such as removing Kashmirā€™s autonomy. He can do this because he knows it will galvanize a base that may find his other policies, such as his embrace of free trade, objectionable.

Unlike the top-down Congress, Modiā€™s party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), draws its force and energy from grassroots groups, one of which ā€œhas regularly lobbied the government to limit foreign trade, curb foreign direct investment, and abandon the privatization of the public sector.ā€ That hasnā€™t stopped Modi from pushing all of those policies to please his urban middle-class constituency, a group that feels little sympathy with his base and vociferously applauds what it sees as his liberalizing reforms.

In the same way, Trump has never missed an opportunity to highlight his sympathy with the racist sentiments of his base of lower-middle-class white voters while promoting an economic policy that clearly favors the rich and a foreign policy that, in theory, appears to be less aggressive toward other nations and races.

In the article, Vaishnav remarks that Modiā€™s contradictory behavior produces policy initiatives that give him ā€œan air of indecision and equivocating.ā€ Vaishnav assumes that, at some point, there will be a backlash on one side or the other. He may be forgetting that some strong politicians have an uncanny way of making equivocation prosper, often for quite a long time.

Historical note

Modi, Trump, Duterte, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and, to some extent (at least in the short term), Boris Johnson in the UK reflect a somewhat surprising trend that has worrying similarities with the situation in Europe between the two world wars. Strong-arm leaders ā€” who carefully study whom to avoid alienating while having no bones about humiliating and marginalizing particular minorities ā€” rise to power not by converting the nation to their extremist views, but by exploiting the passive complicity of a not very galvanized and often disparate majority, impatient with the stagnancy bred by bureaucracy and willing to bet on the bold decision-making of politicians who vaunt their strength and cultivate their narcissism. Aided by the power of electronic media, voters easily confuse blatant narcissism with charisma.

Such leaders often come to power as a result of a vague sentiment of disgust the population feels toward what is perceived as the corruption of the existing ruling class. Typically, these rising leaders claim to eliminate corruption, to ā€œ,ā€ as Trump repeatedly insisted.

According to Vaishnav, Modi defeated his rivals in 2014 because of Indiansā€™ perception that ā€œthe Congress party had mismanaged the economy, fallen into paralysis, and faced one major corruption scandal after another.ā€ Brazil has seen the banal, minor and fundamentally ambiguous corruption of Dilma Rousseffā€™s Workersā€™ Party government replaced first by Michel Temerā€™s far more aggressively corrupt government after her impeachment in 2016 and then by Bolsonaro, elected in 2018, whose close association with the criminal class, including death squads, neatly accompanies his own taste for.

In reality, corruption can be seen as an inevitable feature of any political system that puts money at the center of its value system, which of course is the working principle of any capitalist economy. Itā€™s just a question of where corruption lurks, what laws and customs it hides behind and how well it disguises itself. Where money rules, corruption becomes an everyday work tool.

Earlier this year, Forbes assessed Modiā€™s progress in and concluded: ā€œModiā€™s government has been fighting corruption in the wrong places, among the countryā€™s poor. And it has left corruption thriving in the high places, among the countryā€™s rich.ā€ That represents a trend among strong-arm leaders who absolutely need to buy off the most powerful interest groups in their nation just to stay in power. They may even boast about the patriotism of supporting the rich and powerful. The easiest victims of anti-corruption reforms are the poor, many of whom have no choice but to find shortcuts for survival, among which are favors, dodges and subterfuges that can be designated as corruption.

In brief, strong political leaders now seek to alienate those they donā€™t need and protect from alienation those they depend on both for their financing and the energy required to mobilize for their election campaigns. Though Modi leads a nation with a population that is several times the worldā€™s largest democracy, he is just one in a growing cast of talented performers skilled in the art of selective alienation.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Is Narendra Modiā€™s Consensus Unraveling? appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

The first topic was climate change. Pakistan is not a significant contributor to climate change, yet it faces considerable risks with the melting of Himalayan ice, which could have significant implications for the water supply in the country. Climate change is an important international concern, and Khan highlighted the plight facing developing countries that are not the perpetrators of the problem, but are often the net receivers of most of the disadvantages associated with it.

His next subject referred to money laundering and how it hurts developing societies. Their economies are often crippled by national debt due to the need to sustain various development initiatives, but are unable to do so without external assistance. Primarily, there is a huge drain on the nationā€™s finances when elites siphon off vital funds and deposit them in personal bank accounts in London and New York. However, when attempts made to retrieve these monies move forward, the legal systems of these countries prevent speedy solutions, leaving the affected nations no better off in the short or long term. Some of these lifted funds end up diverted to finance terrorism and, therefore, it is doubly urgent that this matter is concentrated on swiftly.

The emotional tone of his speech heightened when he moved on to discuss Islamophobia. A complex, tricky and highly-disputed term, the concept contains a powerful message that aims to highlight what is effectively hatred toward Islam and Muslims. It is difficult to imagine a national leader taking to the podium at the UN schooling avid listeners on the nature of a form of vindictive, hateful racism that affects Muslim groups across the world by virtue of their faith, often in addition to their skin color and cultural norms.

Islamophobia has become hyper-normalized, not only in the ā€œglobal north,ā€ in places such as Western Europe and North America where there are 40 million Muslim minorities, but also in the ā€œglobal south,ā€ in places such as India with its 180 million Muslim minorities often on the receiving end of various forms of systematic racism.

While Khan did not highlight this topic in his speech, the incarceration of over 2 million Chinese Uighur Muslims suggests the globalizing of these issues, but with little global attention on the matter. All of these outcomes are various manifestations of Islamophobia, which has individual, structural, societal, cultural and legal characteristics.

The final part of the speech was devoted to the topic of Kashmir, and rightly so given the urgency of the current situation. The content of his speech on Kashmir highlighted a number of important concerns regarding the foundations of hate toward Muslims. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modiā€™s recent election victory on the back of pronunciations in relation to fighting terrorism and projecting a global vision over the greatness of India is directly from the playbook that we are witnessing in the US, Britain, parts of Europe and Turkey. Various governments gain power when they demonize immigrants and minorities, thereby displaying all the xenophobic tropes seen in populism throughout the ages.

Nationalism

The idea of the strongman facing down cosmopolitan elites ā€” which is code for educated minorities working in the center of power, culture and politics ā€” is a way of shoring up the support of less-educated masses. These supporters are mobilized by the idea of the show of strength in the face of an internal menace at the hands of ā€œothers.ā€ In the end, these politically authoritarian actors are merely shoring up their own status and privileges associated with cozying up to the billionaire class, whose interests are in reducing taxes, securing offshore tax havens and being held to scrutiny as little as possible.

In the case of India, there are concerns in relation to unemployment, imbalance in relation to regional economic development and inflationary pressures on the wider economy. Instead of being addressed in terms of domestic social policy reforms, these issues are presented as outcomes created by undesirable ā€œothers.ā€ This leads to hate and anger being vented in their direction, rather than of governments whose responsibility it is to the entire nation.

But in the further case of India, the rise of Modi has come alongside the demonization of Muslims in India and elsewhere, especially toward Pakistan, which is seen as a harbinger of terrorism that is often exported to India by Pakistan. However, Modi has a history of looking the other way when Muslims are faced with pogroms, namely in . With the ideology of the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) embedded in the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), it is essentially a form of deeply-held racism and casteism underpinned by anti-Muslim and anti-Christian sentiment as an attempt to evoke a sense of a pure race of Hindus.

This politicization of religion is akin to radicalization, extremism and fundamentalism associated with similar processes in relation to other parts of the world. For around 60 days now, 8 million people have faced lockdown in Indian-administered Kashmir. They are being prevented from using telecommunications or traveling. Young people cannot attend schools, colleges and universities. Kashmir is unable to obtain important medical supplies for its peoples.

The 70 years or so years of systematic oppression, marginalization and exclusion at the hands of various Indian governments, which has now placed over 900,000 troops on the borders of Jammu and Kashmir, has reached a new level of despair. With stories of rapes, humans rights abuses, incarceration of young people in the tens of thousands, regular nightly raids and a strict curfew, it is no surprise that Khan uses the idea of an open-air prison to describe the reality facing these 8 million Kashmiri Muslims.

Still at Odds

While both India and Pakistan have gone to war three times over Kashmir, the position of Islamabad has fundamentally changed in relation to the disputed territory. It now places firmly at the fore the view that the right to self-determination is the only solution to the Kashmir question. This is a major step and an important role in light of the fact that the world often turns its eyes away from Kashmir because it sees it as a bilateral problem between India and Pakistan. In doing so, it silences the Kashmiris. Yet now, Pakistan is taking a very different line that places the hopes and futures of Kashmiris in their own hands.

There is no doubt about the fact that Pakistan has its own problems, and Kashmir has been an issue that has plagued the country for many years. Both the US and India routinely accuse Pakistan of nurturing and training terrorists in the country and then exporting them to various neighboring conflicts. However, this would be to deny the historical origins of this observation.

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, Pakistan was working alongside the Americans to train the mujahedeen, supplying them with logistical, military and operational support. As the conflict with the Soviets ended in 1989, these mujahedeen were effectively left on their own. Although trained, battle-hardened and still tribalistic, the formation of the Taliban came about as a way in which to prevent tribal killings, rape and internecine conflict between the Afghans. By the mid-1990s, the Taliban were mobilized in relation to a radical Islam that emerged from outside of the country.

With the events of 9/11 drawing in Pakistan into the ā€œwar on terror,ā€ over 70,000 Pakistanis have lost their lives, largely as a result of attacks on them by other Muslims mobilized by their own misunderstandings of radical political Islam.

By the mid-2000s, the Islamization of the country that began under the auspices of General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in the early 1980s took a turn for the worse as this radicalization in Afghanistan spread into Pakistan. It has affected the experiences of minorities of every hue and faith, and it led to a diminishing of recognition for the diversity of language and culture that was the mosaic of Pakistan when it was first established. Pakistani General Pervaiz Musharraf had to introduce ā€œenlightened moderationā€ to disassociate himself and the wider country from the growing problems of political Islam within it and in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden was found in Pakistan and killed there by US special forces in 2011.

Resolving the Kashmir Conflict

Toward the end of Imran Khanā€™s stirring speech, he alluded to the idea that ā€œIslamic radicalizationā€ is not an ideologically religious phenomenon, but one that emerges out of oppression, marginalization and humiliating experiences at the hands of internal or external agitators, whose means and methods exist to obliterate Muslims. The only way to defend against these kinds of attacks is by putting their ā€œhand on the gun,ā€ or in the case of Pakistan, the finger on the nuclear button.

Such talk is certainly likely to arouse an embittered population in Pakistan who have never heard a national leader speak in such electrifying terms for at least four decades, with the last being Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in the early 1970s. However, this is the tragedy of the situation. Nobody wants war and certainly not a nuclear war. Nobody wants innocent people to suffer such an inhumane existence.

In the world today, there are too many people on the receiving end of systematic violence and oppression, exclusion and annihilation in certain cases, but too much of the world looks away in disdain. This is arguably the most disturbing part of this recent political act by India in relation to scrapping Kashmirā€™s special status. Too much of the world is oblivious to what is going on or simply too disinterested to care. But when this happens, there is room for pockets of radicalization across the Muslim world. And when then there is an incident, an entire faith or country is blamed. Action is taken against certain groups who are targeted en masse, and then it starts all over again.

The people of the world need to understand how the situation in Kashmir is a fundamental violation of every human rights consideration on the planet. There can only be a diplomatic solution, especially in light of 70 years of toil and suffering. Exercising the right to self-determination of Kashmiris is the only solution to this malaise. The world needs to act now before it is too late.

*[A version of this article was cross-posted on the authorā€™s .]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Imran Khan Takes a Shot at Narendra Modi appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

This former acolyte of Tony Blair made an interesting argument: A new billionaire class was taking over India. He had a point. In 2019, a simple question follows: Is that billionaire class still on the ascendant or have things changed a wee bit?

The Billionaire Raj

In Hindi, raj means rule. The Mughal Raj was the rule of the Mughals and the British Raj was the rule of the British. The billionaire raj simply means that billionaires now rule India. It is certainly true that India does have a disproportionately high number of billionaires. Furthermore, many of these super-rich have made their wealth in sectors associated with rent-seeking, suggesting a degree of political power that their counterparts in Germany or Japan lack.

In 2016, the World Economic Forum (WEF) published an article on . Unsurprisingly, it found this caste and class-divided country to be highly unequal. In fact, only South Africa had greater income inequality than India in 2011. In 2016, the richest 1% of Indians owned 53% of the countryā€™s wealth, an increase from 36.8% in 2000. By comparison, the richest 1% in the US owned 37.3% of the countryā€™s wealth in the same year. Prima facie, it would seem that billionaires were ruling the roost even more so in India than in the US. The poorer 50% of Indians merely owned 4.1% of national wealth, leaving them very vulnerable to exploitation, manipulation and even starvation.

There is another fly in the ointment. Unlike the US, Indian business has long been run by close-knit clans, not self-made buccaneers. A story by Forbes revealed that a number of princelings taking over their parentsā€™ business had studied at Harvard Business School (HBS). Such was the strength of their balance sheets and cash flows that these Indian dynasts turned into big philanthropists for American universities, grandmasters in targeting the global rich.

In April 2010, Narayana Murtyā€™s family gave  to Harvard to establish the Murty Classical Library of India. In October that year, Anand Mahindra donated  to Harvard as well, which the university called the ā€œlargest gift for the study of humanities in [its] history.ā€ Ten days after Mahindra, Ratan Tata gifted HBS a whopping .

Many in both the US and India found such gifts deeply unsavory. They felt ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s business houses were demonstrating status back home by name association with Harvard. Some also wondered why Indians were giving to Harvard in the first place. As of June 30, 2010, Harvard already had an endowment of . Thanks to gifts by rich people from around the world, this figure shot up to  as of last year. In contrast, Indian schools, universities and libraries are still pathetically short of cash, libraries and all kinds of resources.

A professor at a top Ivy League university who insists on anonymity argues that money flowing from India to the US is not only unsavory but also unethical. He takes the view that it is akin to poor American and European taxpayers bailing out New York and London bankers. The Murtys, Mahindras and Tatas made their money in relatively poor India, which is still desperately short of capital and needs philanthropy in all sorts of areas. The fact that Indian billionaires choose to give to obscenely rich Harvard, instead of directing that money to drinking water projects in poor villages, demonstrates the heart of their moral darkness.

Giving to Harvard might be a minor sin, but many Indians felt that the new billionaire class increasingly behaved as if was above the law. The land of the license-permit-quota raj where industrialists lived on the patronage of politicians and bureaucrats had changed. Now billionaires could buy bureaucrats, politicians and even . Everything was for sale and billionaires could pay any price. It was indeed their raj.

As with many powerful ideas, the one of the billionaire raj had more than an element of truth. Under Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi, the de jure and de facto leaders of India from 2004 to 2014, there were welfare schemes galore for the poor. Yet dollar billionaires emerged and inequality shot up like Elon Muskā€™s rockets. Why?

There were two reasons for this phenomenon. First, state-owned banks lent money to those who were well-connected. This meant they had huge pools of capital to take great risks with. Second, large chunks of the economy were given to cronies in a land grab that resembled the post-Soviet era in Russia. From land to spectrum, coal to defense equipment,  emerged with chilling regularity. The enterprising could make billions if they were ready to bribe in the millions.

In 2010, a major Indian politician wrote about the ā€œā€ that Singh and Gandhi had unleashed on the country. He had a point. By 2013, two out of three Indians believed that the Congress party-led government was incorrigibly . Unsurprisingly, Prime Minister Narendra Modi won his first term in 2014, promising to run a clean government that would deliver development.

Enter Sanatan Socialism

When Modi ascended to the throne in 2014, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s industry and stock markets rejoiced. By then, Harvard-donor  had prophesied that ā€œpeople [would] talk about the Gujarat model of growth in China.ā€ As chief minister of Gujarat, Modi had wooed industry relentlessly, courted investment like an ardent lover and even tamed truculent anti-business bureaucrats with missionary zeal.

Big business almost uniformly hailed Modiā€™s election as prime minister. If the Gujarat strongman was now the presiding deity in New Delhi and Mumbai, it followed that his corporate bhakts, the Indian word for devotees, would be laughing all the way to the bank. These authors also believed that Modi would push for economic growth because he won the election on the promise of delivering prosperity to the people. Deutsche Bankā€™s global strategist, Sanjeev Sanyal, also the same. He interpreted Modiā€™s slogan ā€œminimum government, maximum governanceā€ as a sign that the Gujarati was ā€œthe first genuinely post-socialist political leader of India and the first to be unapologetically in favour of pro-market reforms.ā€ 

It turns out that all analysts, including the authors, were wrong. Instead of being the market-friendly figure Modi was assumed to be, he has entrusted power into a coterie of bureaucrats who believe the economy can be directed by government fiat. The Modi government had to remove none other than the  for gross incompetence that led to one policy blunder after another. Because of his experience in Gujarat, Modi trusts bureaucrats. Sadly for him, senior bureaucrats are dyed-in-the-wool statists who began their careers when Indira Gandhi unleashed full-blown socialism upon the country.

Modiā€™s trusted bureaucratic coterie believes that the state should intervene in all aspects of life, including the economy. In some ways, this cabal is engaging in a good old fashioned power grab. If the Indian state plays a bigger role, then bureaucrats naturally become more important. Since 2018, this has certainly been the case. In February that year, the authors explained how India had entered an era of Sanatan socialism, a term now increasingly used for Modiā€™s economic policies in many circles.

To be fair to Modi, his economic policies won him reelection in May 2019. He focused single-mindedly on delivering housing, electricity and money to the poorest Indians. His  built toilets and put money directly into the bank accounts of those who until now had been given the runaround by ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s notoriously corrupt bureaucracy. Yet this was not a market-based system centered on growth, investment, consumption or jobs.

In April, one of the authors argued that an economic contraction might be taking place. Demonetization was a terrible idea that was implemented atrociously. The goods and sales tax (GST) was a good idea that was implemented badly. Between the two of them, they gave a one-two knockout punch to what Indians have called the shadow or black economy. Hundreds of thousands of small businesses closed. GDP figures might show growth, but the real economy has most likely shrunk. Even  and  sales figures have fallen. The economy is not on its knees, it is on its back.

The financial crisis that these authors analyzed last year in October has only deepened in 2019. To be fair to Modi, Singh and Gandhi are responsible for much of the . Their cronies borrowed a ton of money from banks and often used it unwisely. Many were reckless with the savings of largely middle-class Indians who trustingly put their money in supposedly safe banks. Some cronies stole the debt they had taken out in the name of their companies and put this money into their own private coffers. They cleverly built their personal fortunes on the bankruptcy of their companies.

Modiā€™s reaction to this crisis has not been implementing reforms recommended by the authors. Instead, he has used ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s bureaucratic apparatus to sort out the financial and economic mess. This apparatus still functions like the . More importantly, its members have no domain expertise. Often, they have moved from defense to agriculture to finance with little understanding of any sector of the economy. Therefore, policymaking under Modi suffers from an ad hoc amateurish approach that often leads to uncertainty, volatility and even chaos.

Despite or perhaps because of stints at , ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s bureaucratic elite largely lack policy chops. Their favored approach is command and control that combines the worst of their colonial and socialist heritage. Their overnight policy changes have made it difficult for anyone to do business regardless of what World Bank rankings may say. So, both small shopkeepers and big billionaires have been left reeling.

Furthermore, the Modi government has decided that billionaires who looted the country must be brought to heel. It believes that the best way to recover assets for state-owned banks is to go strongly after billionaires and make an example of them. Therefore, the Modi government brought in a new Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code in 2016, giving teeth to creditors. It also strengthened the  and brought in tough measures targeting  last year.

The once high-flying  is in jail in Southwest London. The bank accounts of his sister and brother-in-law have been frozen in Singapore.  might be on his way back from Antigua.  is battling extradition in the UK.  and his wife were not allowed to fly out of India even though the founder of Jet Airways is yet to be charged with a crime. Even Reliance Communications, the group owned by Anil Ambani of the all-powerful Ambani family, is facing  proceedings. So is the behemoth . What is going on?

Tax authorities have gained more teeth since Modi was elected in 2014. They have aggressively targeted businessmen across the country, leading one Ahmedabad-based entrepreneur to remark that he was experiencing tax terrorism. The death of , the founder of CafĆ© Coffee Day, is blamed both on implacable private equity partners and unreasonable tax authorities.

Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani might be flying high, but most of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s billionaires are running scared. Modi has widespread public support for going after billionaires and businessmen. Most Indians believe that ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s business elite did not play by the rules and amassed ungodly fortunes. So, ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s bureaucrats now have a metaphorical license to kill any businessman for the slightest of infractions.

In the land with a cyclical view of life and death, it is fitting that the wheel has turned yet again. Once, Jawaharlal Nehruā€™s socialism ended the British Raj. When the Soviet Union fell, socialism turned into crony capitalism under Nehruā€™s heirs that led to a brief billionaire raj. Now that raj is over. An entrepreneur as savvy, likable and well-connected as Siddhartha is dead. In Modiā€™s second term, the sun of Sanatan socialism is now shining bright.

*[Authorsā€™ note: , the Harvard-trained, high-flying, former finance minister, was recently arrested on charges of corruption. Allegedly, he indulged in crony capitalism and facilitated the billionaire raj.]

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observerā€™s editorial policy.

The post Sanatan Socialism Ends Billionaire Raj appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

Modi has shown a penchant for personal engagement with the leaders of major world powers. While critics have warned against the dangers of personalizing diplomatic encounters, many view Modiā€™s proactive interactions as beneficial for India. Even as the country has substantively moved away from being a mere , there are glaring regional and global realities that will require its attention. Its immediate neighborhood will continue to be a priority for India even as it strives to increase its global footprint.

In this guest edition of The Interview, Nilanjana Sen and Joy Mitra talk to Harsh V. Pant, the head of the Strategic Studies Programme at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi and professor of international relations at Kingā€™s College London, about the foreign policy priorities of the Modi government, the changing international and regional challenges, and the future of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s global engagements.

The transcript has been edited for clarity. The interview took place before recent developments in Jammu and Kashmir.

Nilanjana Sen: Your , ā€œIndian Foreign Policy: The Modi Era,ā€ in which you call Narendra Modi the “foreign policy prime minister,” was released earlier this year. What do you find most remarkable about Modi’s performance in his first term, especially on the foreign and security policy front?

Harsh V. Pant: As someone who was a former chief minister of a state, a lot of people were concerned about the impact Modiā€™s arrival as the prime minister may have on the trajectory of Indian foreign policy ā€” and it was, in fact, dramatic. State chief ministers in India usually focus on foreign policy with a view to secure foreign direct investment for their own states, so the focus is largely on economic diplomacy rather than viewing foreign policy as something that would serve a broader strategic purpose. So the concerns were valid, but Modi began his term with an invitation to regional heads for his swearing-in ceremony in 2014, signaling that foreign policy will be a priority area for him.

Second, he has publicly linked ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s domestic transformation to Indian foreign policy priorities, taking foreign policy discourse beyond the confines of a small elite.

Third, Modi has made foreign policy a whole of government enterprise, rather than it being solely the domain of the Ministry of External Affairs [MEA]. He has been instrumental in moving toward integrating military force more clearly and substantively into diplomacy, whereas in the past the two operated in silos. This is ironic because, in the realm of foreign policy, the shadow of military force always looms in the backdrop, and how one calculates moves and countermoves depends on the military balance of power.

Modi has recalibrated this a bit. His government has probed how far India could climb the escalation ladder ā€” whether it was during the surgical strikes in 2016 [against suspected militant bases in Pakistan-administered Kashmir], or the Balakot airstrikes in 2019, or even in the case of Doklam in 2017. So, there has been a calculated move to do this and, more importantly, defense forces today are becoming more integral in ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s outreach and defense diplomacy.

In the past, with respect to our outreach to the US, there were ideological constraints that prevented signing of agreements like the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement [LEMOA], the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement [COMCASA], etc., but today those constraints are gone, and we are comfortable with a military engagement. And this brings me to the last point here, which is recognizing that issue-based alignments are a necessity for India in this day and age.

Joy Mitra: In the aftermath of the Pulwama attack in February 2019 and the retaliatory airstrikes conducted in Balakot, do you think India has developed a sustained policy toward Pakistan to deal with the security threats that emanate from across the border? 

Pant: When Modi started his first term, everyone asked what is different about his engagement with Pakistan. But by the end of the first term, everyone seemed to suggest that it was dramatically different, perhaps even problematic. However, any rational assessment of his approach toward Pakistan has to be balanced. Given the mandate he received, he began his term first with outreach efforts toward Pakistan. But after the Pathankot and Uri attacks, Modi realized that this approach was not paying dividends. 

In fact, Modiā€™s predecessors have also grappled with the question of how to deal with Pakistan under a nuclear overhang. Pakistan is a geographical constraint, so everyone has tried to deal with it. During his term as prime minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh felt escalation wasn’t a good choice for India, and there was a time that strategy was useful since it gave India the strategic space to convince the world that India is not the loony one. 

Modi realized that this traditional framework was not working, so when terror struck again, the idea that he had to try another option, which was the military option, settled in. He probed how far India could climb the escalation ladder, and I think the first attempt was the surgical strike in 2016. India saw the impact it had and assessed what was right and what went wrong with the approach, and by the time it reached Pulwama-Balakot crisis, there was an assessment that India can climb the escalation ladder. Unlike cross-border land operations where there is the choice of plausible deniability, the use of airpower is certainly riskier because one really doesn’t know how it will end. Modi decided to use airpower not in the Kashmir theater but in mainland Pakistan, so in that sense, he changed the dynamic, especially in terms of how the international community reacted to the use of force. 

Perhaps, India now feels that the use of force will not be met with a negative reaction by the international community, which does empathize with ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s efforts at grappling with terror. For almost four years, every international platform was used by India to make a case for isolating Pakistan, and it yielded dividends when Balakot airstrikes happened, and I think there was method in what was being done by India. Even after the Balakot episode when Masood Azhar’s case for his designation as a global terrorist came up, all major powers rallied toward India. There was a sense within the international community that if this is not done then India will be forced to escalate. So the onus of de-escalation is now on Pakistan and not on India. It seems then that Modi has managed to change the calculus. 

Whether or not this is a permanent situation remains to be seen, but my sense is that the message has been delivered. Modi is unwilling to yield. He could have invited [Pakistani Prime Minister] Imran Khan for his swearing-in ceremony, but he chose not to. He is also consciously engaging with BIMSTEC and other platforms to not be held hostage to Pakistan’s ways. However, with a skewed civil-military balance, the nature of problems within Pakistan is structural. Whether the current policy of airstrikes will remain the way it is also depends on Pakistan’s choices. 

Sen: India’s immediate periphery in South Asia is characterized by a variety of security, economic and developmental challenges. How has India responded to these challenges under Modiā€™s leadership, and what foreign policy trajectory should India follow?  

Pant: South Asiaā€™s regional politics can be located in two geographies. One is toward the west, where India can link itself to the West Asian landscape, and the other is toward the east, wherein it draws on the economic viability and economic systems of East and Southeast Asia.

Largely, it is the problem of state capacity in South Asia that hinders economic development, social harmony, even regional integration. The periphery remains problematic partly because of the inherent weaknesses in the state capacities of these countries. This will continue to be a problem, and it will have externalities for India which we will have to deal with. The best that India can do is provide indirect capacity building support to the countries. The challenge for India is that the moment it tries to do too much, it is blamed for interfering in the internal affairs of neighboring countries.

The other issue is that regional states now see China as an alternative and a great benefactor. China is looked at as a country that can deliver. As far as India is concerned, it is still very poor in terms of delivery on projects. There are time delays that lead to an escalation of costs, and sometimes projects never get completed. One of the good things Modi did when he came to office was his decision to not sign new MoUs [memoranda of understanding] with the neighbors. His focus was the completion of existing projects that were in the pipeline. If India canā€™t deliver in its neighborhood, then there will be doubts about it establishing a global footprint. The recognition that unless India delivers, it is all pointless is now there.

Hopefully, this will also continue at the level of foreign policy during Modiā€™s second term. The aspirations in regional states are rising, and they often look to China because of the belief that it will deliver. I feel constantly using the China card and the more overt positioning vis-Ć -vis China might be counterproductive for India. What India can do is to alert the neighbors about certain developments such as what happened in Hambantota, under the rubric of the Belt and Road Initiative [BRI] in Sri Lanka. India, with its limited resources, can actually focus on the building capacity of these countries in terms of, say, improved project assessments. Say if China puts forth a project proposal to a particular state, India could help with feasibility and cost assessments. It is better at such work because of a more participatory approach. Our approach to aid is more bottom-up.

In terms of articulation, what Modi has done is sensible. The traditional idea of what constitutes South Asia is increasingly redundant. ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s periphery is not simply the countries that are part of SAARC [South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation]. South Asia as a geographical region is evolving. Until a few decades back, Afghanistan was not considered part of South Asia, but now it is; similarly Myanmar and Thailand, which are now part of BIMSTEC [Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation]. It doesn’t make sense for India to not consider these countries as part of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s immediate neighborhood.

Such a consideration shifts the focus away from the West, which is complicated because of the relationship with Pakistan, and it also links India to the Southeast Asian growth story. It situates the Bay of Bengal in the larger Indo-Pacific paradigm. So, you have that sense that if the world is looking at Indo-Pacific as one geography, then the Bay of Bengal is important. India can now reimagine its geography and its strategic periphery by breaking away from the constraints of the past. This is something India has been trying to do, and it is helpful domestically because it allows the northeast of India to develop. If the northeast is connected to Myanmar, Thailand, Southeast Asia, then it is helpful.

But the larger issue of transitions within the countries on the periphery will continue. In the last few years, very explicit pro-China and pro-India constituencies have developed in the neighboring countries, and this will continue. Going forward, it is important for India to acknowledge that it has not done enough as a provider of economic security, in terms of economic integration, infrastructure development and connectivity.

Sen: In the Indo-Pacific region, India is trying to leverage its relationship with other powers to counter China’s strategic assertiveness. To that effect, India is part of the so-called Quad that includes the United States, Japan and Australia. India, however, is often viewed as the ā€œweakest linkā€ in the group. How would you explain India’s approach toward the Quad: hesitant or pragmatic?

Pant: ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s approach was hesitant when the Quad first came into existence in 2007. A lot has changed since then, and ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s approach is more pragmatic now. My sense is that if there was any other administration in Washington, India would have been comfortable taking a more overt position. After all, Modi did go ahead and sign LEMOA, COMCASA, etc. He made America such a big part of his global outreach.

But [US President Donald] Trump, as a leader, is very complicated. Trumpā€™s approach to global economic order is very problematic for India and this means that India will have to find ways of working with other countries, including China. When you see India and China together, you see them talking about the economic order. This is because these two countries have a lot at stake in what Trump is doing. While strategically India still pivots toward America, there are issues on which the Trump administration has made it very difficult for India to not engage with Chinese.

This does impact ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s ability to participate in the Quad. Yes, New Delhi wants certain things to go forward, but it also doesnā€™t want to raise red flags in Beijing ā€” although I feel that Beijing works on the assumption that India is in the other camp. They recognize that they can work with India on certain issues, but if you look at their narrative, you will see that for them India has become part of this larger containment game that the US is playing.

India officially still wants to hedge. If you see Quad 2.0, it is about connectivity, infrastructure and whether the Quad members can have an alternative plan to Chinaā€™s BRI.  If you look at the military exercises, for example, there are no Quad military exercises happening. The Quad evokes a slight unease for India, and I feel even Australia shares that concern about making it a strategic pillar for everything that is happening in the region.

There is also this question of differing definitions of the Indo-Pacific, whether the term is geographic or political. Australia and the US have a definition of Indo-Pacific that ends at the Indian subcontinent, while ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s definition extends all the way to the coast of Africa. Unless there is some agreement on the geographical and political parameters of the engagement, it is very difficult to concur on the remit of this security engagement. The Australians, for example, want to be part of the Malabar exercises, but India continues to be ambivalent. Perhaps India does not want to give China the message that all is over.

If we consider the Wuhan summit, which happened post-Doklam crisis, it was an effort at this recalibration. This recalibration was driven partly because India wanted to bring down tensions after the Doklam crisis, but also in part because of economic tensions with the US. It also happened because China is concerned about what the US is doing, the trade war and so forth. No nation seems willing to make hard choices.

If tomorrow there is a deal between the US and China, both of them might come to a modus vivendi, and then the US could decide that it would not go with the Quad or the idea of Indo-Pacific. India needs to be aware of that probability. This is also something that one observes in Australiaā€™s engagement with China or Japanā€™s engagement with China. This effort to recalibrate is in large part due to the inability to gauge what the Trump administration wants, and it is this uncertainty which is pushing countries like India toward a hedging position rather than a more categorical assertion on approach to China.

Mitra: As far as the Indo-US relationship is concerned, what can we expect in Modi’s second term? Is there a common strategic purpose between the two countries or is there an increasing incoherence in terms of their strategic priorities, and how much of this coherence or incoherence is driven at the level of individual leadership?

Pant: While there is nothing wrong with politicians taking decisions driven by domestic compulsions, it is not clear what exactly is driving the decisions taken by President Donald Trump. This lack of clarity is extremely difficult to manage. With every other president of the US, you could identify a few broad parameters around which their foreign policy revolved. I donā€™t imply that during the tenure of former presidents like Barack Obama that India did not have issues with the US, but with Trump it is particularly difficult to formulate a policy response to issues. Modi tried and he did succeed when he visited Trump in Washington, DC, in June 2017.

One of the key strands of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s policy has been to convince the US to consider the rise of India in its long-term interest and, therefore, the strategic picture should not be lost sight of. The two countries may continue having differences over their respective stand on individual issues like Iran or Russia and they may have problems on trade issues, but India would not want to lose sight of the big picture and would have the same expectation from the US.

If we look at it rationally, Trump has not been bad for India. His Pakistan and China policies have been tough, and this suits India. However, the problem we have is two-fold. Consider the South Asia strategy the US came up with during Trumpā€™s first term. It was very positive about ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s role in Afghanistan, but then suddenly the route to negotiation was taken to ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s exclusion. On trade, there is a constituency in America that believes that the trade imbalance is a consequence of what China and India are doing.

In such a situation, what should India do? The question is whether you can convince the US that there is a long-term future of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s relationship with the US and that this has been ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s strategy throughout. But this is a difficult proposition with Trump because he is a transactionalist. He is not looking at the long-term strategic picture and is only interested in the immediate benefits at the cost of long-term deliverables.

Sen: Key powers like the US, China and Russia have become very assertive toward shaping the global order. In your assessment, how does Modi manage bilateral relationships between these three competing powers?

Pant: I think one of Modiā€™s successes in his last term was how India managed major powers. But I believe some of this balance is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. In particular, it is hard to tell how the US-China relationship would evolve. The trade and technology conflict that is happening will impinge on countries like India because India has assumed that these major powers, especially on the economic side of the equation, are more or less on the same page, but it does not look that way now. Even the issue of technology has become contentious. There was a time when trade and technology were seen as public goods ā€” not discounting the fact that the US would be the dominant factor, but, by and large, the US was benign enough to let everyone use it and take its advantage.

But it does not look that way now. India today has to shape its own policy priorities because it has articulated that it wants to be a leading power. It is not simply about balancing, it is also about the desire to shape the global order. And if India wants to shape global order, it is inevitable that India eventually would have to make some difficult choices.

How India manages its relations with Russia is also becoming challenging because Russiaā€™s traditional role is being questioned today. Many in India question whether it is the same Russia of the past, given the changing priorities of the country. Considering Russiaā€™s close engagement with China, how far can India actually go with the Russians?

The challenges are manifold in terms of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s engagement with major powers, but the question is whether India can be transactional enough to get some advantages from the bilateral engagements. One of the ways in which India solved the Russia challenge was by rewarding them with big defense orders. Such actions are not sustainable because it can happen maybe only once in three or four years. But that does seem to be becoming the norm, even if only for a declaratory purpose where every year we have these bilateral summits with the Russians and we at least announce a deal.

Part of the problem is also that there is so little else to show in this relationship ā€” economically, there is nothing much happening, and politically and diplomatically we are increasingly thinking differently. Russians, for example, question the whole idea of the Indo-Pacific, whereas for India it is central to the way of looking at the world now. Russiaā€™s engagement with Pakistan is deepening and Russiaā€™s engagement in Afghanistan is very different from what it was in the past. Russiaā€™s interest in the Middle East is also problematic because it is more or less in confrontation with the US. The diverging interests between India and Russia will be something to watch out for.

I feel what Modi did effectively in his first term is that he understood that diplomacy with major powers sometimes has to be done at the leadership level because we have very strong personalities running these powers. I feel this trend will continue and it makes sense to do this. But whether it will yield dividends in terms of resolving the larger policy problems that India faces is hard to tell. Perhaps India will simply have to manage such trends till another equilibrium is reached.

Mitra: What do you make of Modi’s outreach to China at the Wuhan Summit? Do you think summits of this nature where dialogue is initiated at the highest level of the leadership could offer a template to manage or de-escalate Doklam-style crises going forward?

Pant: If it happens again, not only would there be a question mark over the informal summitry, but it would also mean that Modi will have to face some challenges at the personal level. If he has staked his reputation on stabilizing the relationship with China, then a repeated mishap would mean he would have to respond. The onus will be on him. If diplomacy is so personalized, that is the risk you face.

The border issue is a big-ticket issue in some ways for India, and in this term, China is going to be a priority for Modi. One of the ways in which he has tried to anchor this problem is by going back to something India harped on back in the 1990s. So, the narrative now is that China and India will have to work together on global issues. Since the global economic order is currently under stress, they will explore the possibility of working together to stabilize the order and become the guarantors of globalization. This effort at working together will have an impact on the relationship, but whether it will resolve long-standing bilateral problems is hard to tell.

Sen: What impedes India’s defense modernization? Are we only limited by financial resources, and will this be a high priority for Modi in his second term?

Pant: The problem is largely institutional. I feel defense modernization should be a priority for India. The country is bringing the military more sensibly into diplomacy as part of its strategy to attain foreign policy objectives. Whether it is for projecting power or humanitarian aid ā€” consider the use of naval forces ā€” or for deterrence and compellence purposes that we do with China and Pakistan.

The question is also whether India is effectively utilizing its military instrument. ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s institutional structures are not capable of meeting the kind of threats that it faces today. India found it difficult to add just 36 Rafale fighter air crafts to its inventory. Think about the scale of what we are talking about. India is short by at least seven or eight squadrons in terms of what it needs to manage its main challenges. There has to be some way of thinking in a manner that enables India to handle this situation smartly and swiftly. But, clearly, that has not happened given the financial, political and process-related constraints. The lack of transparency in ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s defense procurement system means that almost every procurement is marred in corruption allegations.

India needs to start thinking more strategically about national security and force posture. Every serious country does that. It needs to make better projections about the future and, unfortunately, that kind of work has not happened in India yet. India is always found firefighting and is mostly making ad-hoc decisions. As India looks to modernize its forces looking at the changing balance of power with China, it is also trying to focus on ā€œMake in India.ā€

This compounds the problem because ā€œMake in Indiaā€ is not going to happen in five years. If you want to develop manufacturing capacity in India, it will take at least another decade in terms of getting the infrastructure in place and then operationalizing the policy. Immediate threat landscape does not allow that kind of time. The government is right that India needs domestic manufacturing capacity, but there are immediate threats that have to be dealt with. Unless India brings its ends, ways and means into balance, it will be found wanting in managing national security.

Mitra: Would you agree that Modi is rewiring ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s engagement with the world and this will continue as a consequence of his re-election in 2019?

Pant: It has been debated whether Modi’s foreign policy is more style than substance, whether the change is more superficial in terms of his own personal engagements, rather than any fundamental level shift in foreign policy.

My assessment is that there has been a shift in both the style of how we conduct our foreign policy under Modi as well as the substance of ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s engagement with the world. It’s more outgoing and proactive, it’s focused on outcomes and, more importantly, it is aimed at mobilizing global public opinion to achieve concrete outcomes for India. Five years, however, is a short time period to assess any substantive shift in terms of foreign policy. But my sense is that at the end of Modi’s 10 years in office, we will see a very different kind of Indian engagement with the international system.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Defense Is Becoming More Integral to ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s Diplomacy appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.

±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s were the most wide-ranging and expensive election campaign in the nationā€™s history. In emphatic style, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) blew away the opposition to seal his re-election with a of 303 seats.

Yet Modiā€™s return to power has brought distress for some minorities, including ±õ²Ō»å¾±²¹ā€™s 200 million Muslims. With an increase in hate crimes against Indian Muslims, ā€œsome fear the world’s largest democracy is becoming dangerously intolerantā€ under the Hindu nationalist government, the BBCā€™s Rajini Vaidyanathan.

RELIGION IS POISONING INDIAN POLITICS

Using as a way to win is a global phenomenon. For instance, Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Republicans in the US all use religion in politics. Politicians appeal to religious emotions to gain support. Indeed, Modi is a great example of that practice and he has dramatically reshaped the politics of India.

Ever since he was first elected in 2014, Modi has tried to appease his partyā€™s hard-line while pursuing his goals of development and economic growth. He has humored Hindu extremists like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) organization that created his party. Modi himself was an RSS preacher before he became an active BJP politician. While the prime minister has not condoned violence against Indian Muslims, he has not publicly criticized by Hindu extremists.

Hindutva, a form of Hindu nationalism, is where the problem lies. As a term and ideology, it was popularized by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar first in 1923. It forms the basis of the RSS, as well as the Vishva Hindu Parishad and Hindu Sena groups. As a far-right, ethno-nationalist ideology, Hindutva uses religion as a way to violence ā€œagainst Dalits, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Ravidassias and Buddhists.ā€

Over the past five years, the Hindutva movementĀ has gained momentum under the Modi government. According to Human Rights Watch, calling for the protection of cows have killed . Most of them are Muslims who were murdered for allegedly slaughtering cows. Many Hindus believe cows are sacred and killing them is a sin. Therefore, some extremists have targeted those who kill the animal.

These attacks are a symptom of the rise of violent Hindu nationalism under Modi. With a BJP government in office, some have seen this as encouragement to embark on vigilantism against cattle traders. Even ā€œlower-caste Hindus previously known as ā€˜untouchablesā€™ have faced violence from hard-line Hindu nationalists,ā€ Swati Gupta.

HINDU EXTREMISM MUST BE REINED IN

Paul Marshall, a senior fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom, that while international focus has been Ā on Islamic terrorism, it has largely ignored Hindu extremism and its record of violence. Saffron terror is a real phenomenon and is supported by members of the BJP. It is rarely scrutinized in the West because Hinduism is stereotyped as a gentle and non-violent faith. It is personified by the image of Mahatma Gandhi.

This allows the RSS and the BJP to take advantage of the attention that the West gives to Islamist violence, enabling Hindu extremism to slip under the radar. In fact, the actions of Hindu extremists are perturbing and nerve-wracking. In India, religious extremism and hatred are now deeply entrenched.

Under Modi, anti-Muslim ā€œbigotry has been normalised in the democratic process,ā€ journalist Neyaz Farooquee. After re-election, the BJP might double down on its policies, making life more difficult for Indian Muslims and other groups. Therefore, the international community must take urgent measures to ensure the ruling party and its allies do not target minorities.

The United Nations, along with other major powers, should put pressure on India to protect minority rights as per its constitution. India must curb the RSS and other extremist Hindu groups. It must prevent communal riots and human rights violations.

In 2018, the BJP government ā€œharassed and at times prosecuted activists, lawyers, human rights defenders and journalists for criticizing authorities,ā€ according to . This must stop. Instead, Prime Minister Modi must work to create a balanced, peaceful and tolerant environment for all minorities in India.

The views expressed in this article are the authorā€™s own and do not necessarily reflect 51³Ō¹Ļā€™s editorial policy.

The post Does Modi’s Re-Election Threaten India’s Muslims? appeared first on 51³Ō¹Ļ.