Immoderate Modi

[HASEEB ANSARI]

Immoderate Modi
By Brian Cloughley

Elections are to be held in India early next year, and the results will be important not only for India but for the world in which it is an increasingly key player. India seeks to exercise influence well beyond its borders. There is nothing wrong with that because trade depends to a considerable extent on the effects that national administrations can have on partner countries.

It is essential that governments support domestic commercial endeavours and forge overseas ties that can contribute to national prosperity. But fist-waving and noisy threats are also ways of making an impression, and it is possible that the next government in Delhi could be drawn to strident confrontation rather than pragmatic compromise.

It is regrettable that India and Pakistan have been unable to move towards extension of trade. It is obvious – and mutually agreed – that this would benefit both countries, but relations continue to crash on rocks of suspicion, and for so long as they do the peoples of the Subcontinent will not benefit economically from the advantages of being neighbours. Over the past nine years the governments of Dr Manmohan Singh have made attempts at rapprochement with Pakistan, but unfortunately these have had to be moderated or even placed on hold by reason of external complications, not the least of which was the Mumbai terrorist attack in 2008.

The allegations concerning this appalling atrocity continue to poison bilateral relations, and although it is hoped that there can be forward movement, there are massive barriers to engagement. This doesn’t mean that there can never be any positive developments – but much depends on the next government in Delhi, which could well be led by the nationalist drum-thumper Narendra Modi.

India’s governing coalition is in election mode and the opposition is in election Modi, with the right-wing nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) flexing its muscles and attacking the Congress Party while telling the electorate that all will be milk and honey if they tick the right-wing spots on their ballots. The controversial Modi has been selected to lead the BJP, and it is interesting to examine what this might mean for the future. Would Prime Minister Modi continue his ultra-nationalist stance when faced with the problems of practical governance?

In a July interview with Reuters he said, “I'm a Hindu nationalist...I'm a Hindu nationalist because I'm a born Hindu. I'm patriotic so nothing is wrong in it.” Of course there is nothing wrong with being patriotic – but as a would-be national leader of a constitutionally secular country there is something decidedly wrong in saying that patriotism is contingent on your religion, for that way lies divisiveness and confrontation – and Modi is no stranger to either.

Since 2001 Modi has been chief minister of the state of Gujarat and has been successful in alienating its Muslims who are about a tenth of its 60 million people. One of the most notorious instances of communal carnage in India since the slaughter of Sikhs in 1984 took place in his state in 2002, and he has not uttered a word of sympathy for what happened.Now this may be simple political expediency, as it would go down poorly with the Hindu population were he to criticise the killing of Muslims, and no doubt members of the powerful para-military Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a BJP ally, would seize the opportunity to castigate him for being weak. But the fact remains that the butchery seems to have left him entirely unmoved. And, as Human Rights Watch observed, “Instead of prosecuting senior state and police officials implicated in the atrocities, the Gujarat authorities have engaged in denial and obstruction of justice.” Modi is no longer a formal member of any of the ultra-nationalist bands that thrive in India, but he joined the RSS in Maninagar (now his electorate) at the age of 17 and became head of its India-wide student wing. Being an astute politician he then distanced himself publicly from the extremists, while keeping them sweet by endorsement of Hindutva (‘Hinduness’). It is apparent that he remains a zealot.

This does not augur well for national governance by Modi. Following his first appearance and speech as leader of the BJP, The Times of India reflected that he “may prove a greater liability than his development record can transcend”, while other media outlets were equally dubious about his ability to overcome his image as a “Hindutva hardliner”. There was no attempt on Modi’s part to be conciliatory towards Pakistan, and the occasion was aimed specifically at ex-servicemen, with the former army chief, General VK Singh, on the platform next to Modi, flanked by another 20 retired generals.

In a flight of bombast Modi claimed to much military cheering that when Pakistan “could not defeat the Indian Army, you started going for killing innocent citizens”, which is no cause for optimism concerning the future of rapprochement if Modi’s BJP gains power. And this appears only too likely.

In 2002 Britain and the US noted Modi’s complicity in the Gujarat massacres and denied him entry visas. But the governments of both countries are subordinate to commercial interests and place financial considerations above those of morality – and India is becoming an increasingly valuable trading partner. So the straw in India’s electoral wind is that, having done their political homework, neither country will now bar him from entry. It seems they think he stands a good chance of being the next PM and have cut their moral cloth accordingly.

Judging by Modi’s latest pronouncement that “A lot of people die in terrorist attacks . . . Pakistan beheads our soldiers on our soil. Yet, Delhi is holding talks with Pakistan over chicken biryani”, it seems there is little moderation to be expected, and that Pakistan had better be prepared for more rocks ahead.

The writer is a South Asian affairs analyst. Website: www.beecluff.com