Modi, Kashmir and Pakistan’s Dilemma
Twenty days into the repeal of Article 370 and a total shutdown — we look at the politics behind the decision
Modi’s surprise actions in Kashmir after repealing Article 370 was influenced by a worldview that has seized India, Hindutva, a rabid form of nationalism that is built upon a grand conceit. For Hindu nationalists, Islam is the problem and its place in any future India is for it to be subdued, depoliticised and chastened by the power of the state and the braying of the mob. It is a necessary doctrine Modi has encouraged to create a direction for his country to provide purpose and meaning for what many Indian’s today call its historical moment. Modi has attempted to patch together a ‘grand narrative’ about the country, as he aspires to develop India into a regional power. Like most ultra-nationalists, focussing upon a perceived enemy within and an enemy next door enables a national sentiment for national progression. In this regard, Hindutva shares a lot with 1930’s European fascism.
The mob lynching of Pehlu Khan, a 50-year-old dairy farmer from Rajasthan, just north of New Delhi, caught on camera and uploaded to the internet by those accused of murdering him may have horrified outsiders but in India, his attackers have been lionised. His six killers were filmed brazenly beating him to death whilst he pleaded for mercy. Last week, they were acquitted of murder on a technicality, the video had not apparently met the standards of forensic evidence. This was despite countless witnesses, two of whom were his sons, also beaten, and despite one of the assailants admitting to the murder to an undercover reporter. Around 50 have been lynched in the last three years by the so-called cow vigilantes, and hundreds have been injured.
My guest this week on The Thinking Muslim Podcast, Indian academic Fadl Hejazi, argues the impunity with which the killers conducted their mob justice was the certain knowledge that India’s state institutions would ultimately exonerate them. Since coming to office in 2014, Modi has systematically eroded the independence of state institutions. The judiciary, law enforcement, and civil administration have all been subverted by his call for national renewal and the need to chasten Muslims. Even more insidiously, this nationalism has created a media conformity that requires TV anchors and pundits to echo the message coming out of New Delhi or be branded as unpatriotic. The recent Pulwama and Balakot episodes just illustrates the length to which India’s media is ready to conspire with Modi.
Indian politics has since partition been dominated by the Congress Party, the party of its founder Nehru. This one-party domination collapsed in 1998 for a brief period when the BJP came to office and it seemed, for a while at least, that a new two-party system would replace the monopoly of Congress. When the BJP lost power in 2004 and Congress returned to dominate Indian politics for a decade, such views seemed premature. However, in 2014 under Narendra Modi, the BJP returned and today dominates the Indian political scene, winning a landslide electoral victory in April. This is in no small part down to both the Obama and Trump administrations barely concealing their support for Modi. For the Americans, the BJP government can be enlisted to side with it in its quest to counterbalance against its new global competitor, China. This is why despite his obvious power grab in Kashmir, Modi is feted around the world, moving from UAE to the G7 Summit in Biarritz, France, posing with the so-called great powers. Not only does this embolden Modi at home, but it also sends the clear signal that what happens in Kashmir, in terms of state repression, imprisonment, disappearances and worse is unimportant to powers that profess liberty for all.
The Afghan connection
The Americans for their part have remained muted over Modi’s mob justice and Kashmir land-grab. India’s strategic importance and that of the BJP remaining in government supersedes any consideration for justice. As discussed in our last programme, in the short-term, the Trump administration sees mediation on Kashmir conditional to full support from Pakistan over its Afghan dilemma. This support, at least from the US’ perspective, has until now not been genuine, accusing Islamabad of playing a double-game.
America’s longest war may be coming to an end, at least that is the hope of the Trump administration. For 18 years, the US has failed to bring the Taliban to heel, oscillating between failed troop surges and periods of diplomacy. The Bush administration began the war with grandiose notions of regime change and democratic transformation only to be swallowed into a quagmire about which most Americans had lost interest. When Obama came to office, he announced a troop withdrawal and a drawdown of US commitments as he attempted to refocus his attention to the Far East and the emerging threat from China, his so-called ‘pivot to Asia’. However, this intention to exit came with a troop surge, at one point 140,000 NATO ISAF troops were deployed to root out the militia group that had fought a successful asymmetrical war. By 2014 Obama’s failure was clear, the Taliban remained at-large and their power had not eroded. All Obama could do was engage in a face-saving exercise and publicly withdraw, rebrand the operation and keep a residual force of 9000 to supposedly undertake ‘non-combat’ roles. This façade was soon exposed, as US troops had to re engage, leading the Trump administration to accept the inevitable, the only solution was to negotiate a way out. However, like another failed war, Vietnam, it has to ‘leave with honour’.
The American’s need Pakistan to bring all of the Taliban to the negotiating table and critically, apply pressure on the militant group to negotiate with the Afghan Ghani government. The Taliban thus far have flatly refused to speak to Ghani, preferring the optics of negotiating with the world’s superpower, without this the US presence in Afghanistan would be shown to be what it, in reality, is, the real political force in the country. Simply put, Trump needs the above two conditions to be met to ‘leave with honour’ and withholding diplomatic support to Pakistan over Kashmir allows it to apply pressure upon Islamabad. Its hope is Pakistan will get the message.
For his part, Imran Khan has to play the role of the resolute leader, taking to Twitter to castigate Modi and talking of Hindutva and false-flag operations.
Together with a failed Security Council special meeting sponsored half-heartedly by China, calls to take India to the International Court of Justice and, bizarrely, an effort to suspend Priyanka Chopra as a UN goodwill ambassador. These moves may play well to temporarily pacify an enraged public but does little to address the real problem, that of India’s occupation of Kashmir.