It is remarkable how Western media, think tanks, foundations, civil society elements, and sections of the Indian diaspora have promoted an anti-Modi narrative in the lead-up to our national elections and have carried it through the weeks-long staggered polling.
Foreign Affairs magazine has published articles from the most vicious Modi/BJP baiters. The Guardian has excelled itself in highly political malign reporting on India. The Financial Times has, as usual, liberally sullied India to the point of raising doubts about whether it is engaged in politics or journalism. The New York Times has continued its relentless smear campaign, as has The Washington Post. The Economist believes it still has a moral responsibility to pronounce on India’s governance which must measure up to fictitious British imperial standards.
All the familiar strictures about the backsliding of democracy, persecution of minorities, curbs on the media, misuse of state institutions to target political opponents, and the loss of independence of the Election Commission have been repeated. Since the reality of the scale of India’s democratic election cannot be denied, phraseology has been found to belittle the importance of this biggest electoral exercise in human history by referring to India’s democracy as an “electoral autocracy”, one that is ostensibly fair in terms of process, but with the control of institutions and leveraging them against the Opposition by the government the actual result is an unequal playing field.
The effort has also been to paint India as a rising rogue state of sorts which has sought to assassinate Indian political “dissidents” abroad, such as Nijjar and Pannun. There is a total refusal to recognise their links with terrorist violence, gun running and drugs. Accusations of “transnational repression” have been made to place India in the category of countries like China that monitor the activities of their diasporas and seek to suppress the voice of anti-government elements abroad. All of a sudden, stories of Indian intelligence agents being expelled from Australia some years ago have found their way into the media. Interference by India in elections in Canada has been alleged to project a picture of India’s agencies involved in objectionable activities abroad.
A recent article in The Economist argues that the West is making it easy for Modi by not using technology and investment which India seeks to address its violation of democracy norms and the human rights of its population under the present government. The Economist has voiced what seems to be the concern of core Western establishments that they should learn from their mistakes in giving a pass to China on the Tiananmen Square massacre in the past in order to retain it on their side against the Soviets, and not give India a similar pass to induce it to remain on their side against China. That these establishments believe that the danger of Modi suppressing democracy in his third term is somehow comparable with what happened at Tiananmen shows how deep the undercurrents of animus against Modi are in Western circles.
Likewise, The Economist has judged that just as commercial interests dictated policy towards China, Western officials are today using the same arguments of commercial interests to ignore democratic backsliding in India. One way to stop individual governments from being penalised for their criticism as experienced with China is the view that Western governments should prevent this by coordinating common positions and making statements at the same time on India’s transgression of democratic norms.
Astonishingly, and this shows the vacuousness of geopolitical thinking in Western circles, the view is that a more authoritarian India would bolster China’s efforts to legitimise its own form of government — especially in the Global South — and undermine the Western-led global order. China’s credentials in the Global South are in fact today stronger than those of the democratic West, and this is true even in Islamic countries despite its egregious persecution of the Uighurs.
In another example of skewed geopolitical thinking, The Economist blames India for not helping to promote democracy in Myanmar and Bangladesh. Thankfully, it hasn’t blamed India for not promoting democracy in Pakistan! The West, The Economist concludes, must show its consistent concerns to Modi’s government and the Indian public, which would explain the clearly orchestrated campaign against Modi and the BJP ever since he took power and the momentum it has gained with the prospect of Modi winning a third term.
Some salutary conclusions need to be drawn from all this. One, the Western rhetoric of India being the world’s largest democracy and India and the West sharing values should not be taken at face value. The establishments in the West, both conservative and progressive, have concerns about a rising India and what this might mean for a further power shift away from the West. An independent-minded India under a strong leadership with its own civilisational moorings is not what the West would prefer.
Two, India has been a victim of sanctions by the West for decades. The West is increasingly using sanctions as a tool of its foreign policy. India has recently been alerted about the consequences if it violates US sanctions on Iran, and while India has not been sanctioned on its relations with Russia, the requisite US legislation for imposing sanctions exists. The Economist article suggests technology and investment as sanction tools to pressure India to limit the unwelcome aspects of India’s independent approach to foreign affairs.
Three, there is close coordination between Western circles and Opposition elements in India to slam the state of democracy, besides raising the issue of authoritarianism and minority persecution. Raising the spectre of caste and class conflicts in the country is part of this strategy. This is intended to keep India divided and prevent any consolidation of widening Hindu support for the BJP.
Four, India must retain an independent foreign policy in its larger national interest. The view that India must choose sides, that being friends with all is not sustainable as policy, that India should move away from a declining Russia as a partner and choose the West as a partner of choice – especially in view of the growing Russia-China strategic ties – is being promoted by West-oriented circles in India. India should maintain a balance in its external ties, draw closer to the West to the extent required by national interest but not draw away from time-tested friends also in national interest.
Five, the question to be asked is when India does not interfere in the internal affairs of Western countries, does not lecture them on deficiencies in their democracies, does not give them homilies on minority and racial discrimination and the rise of fascism in their societies, and so on, why do they feel the compulsion to admonish us on perceived deficiencies in our society and governance? What is their obligation to do so when their own hands are unclean? India must take note of White supremacist thinking in the West that The Economist article reflects.
Kanwal Sibal is a former Indian Foreign Secretary. He was India’s Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France and Russia. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.