We've been talking a lot about age in the context of American presidential politics, but Modi is no spring chicken himself. He's 72 years old. Younger than Joe Biden, sure, but not "young". This post talked a lot about the politics of "Modi" as though he was a unitary executive figure, but of course he's a prime minister put in power by the support of his political party.
I guess where I'm going with this is that instead of talking about whether "Modi" has illiberal tendencies, maybe the more important thing is to ask what the internal politics of his party the BJP are like. What sorts of leaders are competing within the BJP to be its next leader in five years or ten years? Are there separate "economic development" and "Hindu nationalist" strains within that compete with each other? Will the party be able to hold itself together without Modi as a unifying figure?
If we want to talk mid-term future, where India will be in fifteen years or so, then Modi will shape that future but he won't be that future. Because the future, as ever, belongs to the young (or at least middle aged).
As far as Modi’s illiberal tendencies go, one thing that I have heard persistently from left-leaning and liberal Indians is that most of the Indian media is run by friends of Modi and is ridiculously pro-Modi.
I also happened to catch an episode of the NDTV English-language news recently (there is a free to air channel in Australia that broadcasts a variety of foreign news programmes from around the world) NDTV was, as I understand it, one of the best regarded Indian news organisations. Recently, the Adani Group (run by one of Modi’s billionaire friends), bought the network.
It was 30 minutes of advertising for Modi.
Yes, speculating from a tiny piece of data, but it sure seemed consistent with the “Modi has autocratic tendencies and the place is veering away from liberal democracy” take to me.
For a long time, Gujarat has been a Hindutva laboratory. Or to be more precise, central Gujarat is a Hindutva laboratory. RSS activists are everywhere on the ground, running everything from soup kitchens, children's activities, to paramalitary organizations. The RSS at every moment has been fanning the flames of Hindu / Muslim conflict, making every every day legal , cultural etc. dispute between Hindus and Muslims into an existential threat. The result is that every conflict can turn into bloody riots. Ahmedabad has seen three major riots in the past already, in 1969 , 1985 and finally in 2002.
The fundamental difference between the previous riots and the 2002 riots was that the BJP was in power. After Muslim rioters burned down a train killing 300 Hindu pilgrims, a Congress would have called for calm and restraint. We saw radio silence from Modi. Moreover, for years, followed by deeply religious rhetoric. Moreover, Modi and his BJP predecessors had been hiring and promoting bigotted policemen for years, who personally could care less about anti-Muslim violence. As a result, anti-Muslim arose in far more places and took for longer to end than in normal circumstances.
The overwhelming majority of anti-Mulsim violence is incited by the RSS in non-BJP controlled states. The BJP portrays itself as the party of law and order. Violence in non-BJP states both polarises voters on religious lines and makes opposition look weak. As the BJP loses power in more and more states, I expect violence to become more common.
None of this is to exonerate Modi. While he himself might not have instigated the riots (although people like Amit Shah the home minister do know where to bodies are buried), Modi and his movement spent decades creating the environment where explosive violence became possible.
Good article. I too struggle with Erdogan and Modi. Both are unquestionably popular and I think unquestionably were elected democratically. But they’re also illiberal. Usually democracy and Liberalism (of which most conservatives and progressives across the world are adherents of, even if different sides of the philosophy). Usually Liberalism and democracy go hand in hand; the fact many non-Liberals can win democratically is both a point in democracy’s favor (I like to say democracy and Liberalism are the only ideologies and governments which would willingly hand power over to a different ideology), but a weakness as well.
To cut to the chase I think we have more in common with Erdogan, Modi and Orban than we don’t. They’re still somewhere in that grey area between autocrat and Democrat; liberal and despotism. All three benefit from popular support and democratic institutions. They are what George Washington would have been had he declined to leave office, and what FDR effectively was (a man so popular he couldn’t be beat). Which is to say Turkish, Hungarian and Indian democracy would benefit from more institutional reform. Term limits for the executive are a good idea. It remains to be seen if these men will end their National democracies or leave as merely popular, illiberal nationalists.
Wild guess: I think Orban very likely leaves office (perhaps kicking and screaming, but still, he'll go) if he loses an election, if only because of the EU. I think Erdogan probably doesn't, or at least he would need to lose by a big margin for it to happen. I'm inclined to think Modi would go as of now, but if he remains in power for another decade, maybe not.
I think democracy as in "rule decided by the people" works to a large extent in India. However, for liberalism to go hand in hand with democracy, you need a majority of the population to be well off enough and educated enough to understand and believe in liberalism. It was really a stroke of luck and hard work that India became a democracy in the first place (read India after Gandhi by Ramchandra Guha), and that was only because a large leadership of the Congress and adjacent organizations was schooled in western countries. However the non-elite of India are often too poor to care about liberalism, or still too steeped in beliefs that go contrary to liberalism. Perhaps what we are seeing in India is democracy (in terms of majority rule) actually taking its real form?
Modi as FDR is an essay I would love to read. It seems more helpful than discussing which of BJP's national policies count as illiberalism versus a kind of nationalist liberalism. This can get tricky when we've observed similar decades of a party dominating while remaking political economy in places like postwar Japan or Germany.
Ukraine is in a transitional state toward being a more open, modern democracy. Turkey had been kinda been stuck as a sort of hybrid regime thanks to military coups and India has been becoming more autocratic over time.
Enjoyed the piece. Something else that should be injected into this discussion is India’s strategic status as a nuclear power actively pursuing expansion of its capabilities (especially on the submarine front) while remaining in a precarious position vis-a-vis Pakistan. It would be good for everyone if we could get those two pursuing steps to establish a safer posture.
>while remaining in a precarious position vis-a-vis Pakistan.<
India is also in a precarious position vis-a-vis China, complete with armed clashes and combat deaths within the last few years. And as of last week the two countries have deported each other's journalists (all of them).
One important difference between Modi and Erdogan is that the BJP's dominance is only at the national level. The BJP has suffered a series of losses at the state and local level, including most recently in Karnataka. The BJP and it's allies have net lost states in more or less all of the last 3 years, and roughly 60% of India lives in opposition controlled states, with the percent likely to continue going down.
Moreover, while the BJP has a commanding majority in the Lok Sabha, it won this majority with only 37% of the vote. There are a lot of constituencies won with the narrowest of margins. Indeed in the upper house, the BJP and its coalition is already in a minority (although pseudo allies mean that the upper house doesn't really act as a check).
While the INC coming to power in 2024 is extremely unlikely, even a modest loss of votes will force the BJP to form a genuine coalition government, which will (for better or for worse) both temper the BJP's autocratic tendencies. While the opposition winning seems unlikely, a return to more small-d governance after 2024 is at least somewhat plausible.
Jun 10, 2023·edited Jun 11, 2023Liked by Milan Singh
I grew up in India in the 70s thru 90s, and, fwiw, I think the article is mostly correct and balanced. Couple of comments:
1) The Hindu-Muslim hostility is mutual and dates back centuries; several acts of communal violence, especially before 1980s, were often initiated by muslim vigilantes against the Hindus. Lately, it has been the other way around.
2) Congress ruled virtually unopposed after independence (1947 - 1977), when Indira Gandhi, after imposing emergency, lost to a united coalition of opposition parties; she came back to power in 1981, but was assassinated in 1984. The Congress formula for winning elections was simple: they had a lock on the backward caste Hindus (SC/ST) (23%), Muslims (12%) and upper class Hindus (7%) for a total of 42% All other vote was divided between several regional and national parties, BJP being one of them.
3) Congress leaders would often instigate communal riots to ensure muslims voted en-bloc for Congress; and Congress was often seen pandering to these groups. Did you know India was the first country to ban Satanic Verses, even before Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Iran? This was in late 1980s. That is when the BJP decided to exploit this pandering and began uniting Hindus across castes into a large enough vote bank to be able to win elections nationally. BJP was predominantly urban and middle class. Key events: Advani's Ram rath yatra (1990), Bombay bomb blasts (1993), Indian Parliament attack (2001).
4) BJP first came to power in 1998, and Congress made a comeback in 2004. Finally, BJP won again in 2013 under Modi's leadership. Congress, meanwhile, became increasingly known for dynastic rule (PM had to be from Nehru/Gandhi family) and corruption.
5) Modi, coming from a lower caste family, and by implementing policies that benefit the poor, has significantly expanded BJP's vote base, and the BJP won the last national elections with 37.4% of the vote (Congress got about 19%). So, a good opposition leader should be able to win nationally against Modi, but there is no leader of that stature today. Rahul Gandhi is widely reviled and mocked.
One final point regarding Rahul Gandhi's elimination from the parliament: what Rahul Gandhi said was worse than what has been reported here; he mentioned two absconding criminals with Modi last name, and then suggested he saw a pattern with ALL the Modis. So an individual with last name Modi took offense to this statement and filed a defamation case and won. I am sure there was politics involved, but a leader must face consequences for calling an entire community thieves for the actions of a few, especially in a country that is divided by caste, religion and region.
>there has to be consequence for a leader to call an entire community thieves for the actions of a few
I mean, no, there don't have to be any consequences. Free speech is an unmitigated good, and the government policing speech for insults or defamation is virtually always bad and abused by the powerful. Living in a free society means that some people will use their freedom to insult others, and that's OK. Clamping down on insults is always abused by the government against the opposition, always, in every country and every society that there ever was or will be
"I mean, no, there don't have to be any consequences. Free speech is an unmitigated good, and the government policing speech for insults or defamation is virtually always bad and abused by the powerful."
But that is your value system; should not Indians have a say in what is good or not for their society? After all this law exists in India, and India is a democracy and laws can be changed through the will of the people.
One can argue that free speech in the US is the reason we're facing the challenge from the extreme right (Alex Jones, Carlson Tucker, FOX news, Trump) who lie and lie and instigate hate and division. I personally agree that free speech is a good think and worth the cost, but people of other nationalities may not share that vision.
Well, I would encourage India and every other country to share our value system. My point in observing that the government power to police lies is always, always, always abused is meant to be persuasive. Is it the value system of India that the government can harass the opposition with bad-faith legal attacks? Is the value system of India fundamentally illiberal? I doubt it.
>India is a democracy and laws can be changed through the will of the people
Wellllll..... this gets into complicated stuff about constitutions, elitism and populism. The whole point of having a constitution with fundamental rights is, basically, 'this is the stuff that you don't get to vote on'. That's why democracies have an independent judiciary. I'm sure after 9/11 here in the US all kinds of civil liberties impositions on Muslims would've been popular- fortunately, the Bill of Rights isn't up for a vote or a popularity contest. Our judiciary struck down lots of things that the government tried to do, and whether they were popular with regular voters or not is irrelevant.
I would (in a friendly manner) encourage other countries to learn from our history and implement a strong constitution and a bill of rights that protects the right to criticize and even insult the government
I'll just say that one must defer to other countries to decide for themselves what is right for them. The main argument imperialistic Britain offered for ruling India was that Indians could not govern themselves.
Indian constitution was written with a lot of care, and the committee was headed by Jagjivan Ram who came from a very humble background, and he advocated for the rights of the SC/ST castes of India, including some of the most generous affirmative action policy in their favor.
For you to believe that every culture different from yours must adopt the exact same values smacks of a colonial mindset. The idea that the west is somehow better than everyone else, and that there are no flaws in the west. Many Indians look at the way African Americans have been treated by the US over the years, including today, and wonder how you could have been be so cruel and unjust.
Show some humility and let Indians govern themselves. India is a democracy where fair elections are held on a regular basis and I am sure they will get a few things wrong, but hopefully they will get the big things right.
I specifically said 'this is meant to be persuasive' lol. I said 'encourage' twice. I'm not proposing invading India and instituting American constitutional law- I'm just making a persuasive argument on the Internet. Lots of people not from the US have lots of strong opinions about how we should govern ourselves, and I don't always agree with them- but I don't think that they're somehow imposing on us. A persuasive argument is not colonialist or 'not letting Indians govern themselves'.
We all live in a world where our country's policies are up for critique from others, and that's OK. Free exchange of ideas on the Internet is fine :)
I found your statement that others must adopt your value system a bit offensive and condescending.
Of course you are welcome to criticize a certain law or policy of the Indian government that seems unwise, unjust or offensive in any other way.
Free speech is not absolute, and is, in fact, limited in several countries, including in the US as well as in Germany (no swastikaa etc.). Furthermore, there is a large segment of the Indian population that protests against this particular law, and it might be overturned in the future. But that particular law by itself does not prove that India does not have a liberal democracy in place. That is all I am trying to say. Rahul Gandhi is paying the price for breaking a law, there really is nothing more to than that.
There is this lazy thinking in the west that all developing countries like India are banana republics, which is neither accurate nor helpful. To be clear, I am not saying that that is what you were saying (or thinking), but wanted to provide some context behind my reaction to your original post.
I honestly believe that some basic limits on free speech is not such a bad thing, especially in India where hate speech can lead to riots and deaths. There are trade offs regarding where you draw the line, and each country/culture will determine what is right for them. I say this nicely - don't presume that you know where that line is for India. No one does, and it will come about through the political process in India over time.
The best we can expect from any culture country is that they hold free and fair elections periodically, ensure independent judiciary, allow freedom to the press and enforce rule of law. After this, we trust people (voters) to do what is right for their community/country. How else can we expect to have self governance?
Really enjoyed this piece. I've said this before, but I think it would be really cool get more content like this on SB - smart takes about different countries that try to inform Americans about things they may not be aware of. (It reminded me of Matt's Italy piece from last summer, which is one of my favorites on here.)
Regarding the thesis, I think the Erdogan analogy is a good one, and one I've thought of myself for Modi. But I think it's worth remembering...while Erdogan is, at this point*, quite bad, but he's never gonna be the Chinese Communist Party. India's a lot bigger than Turkey, so if Modi goes full Erdogan he'd probably be more powerful, but it's difficult for me to imagine him marshalling repression on the same scale as the CCP, and I'm not sure there are mechanisms by which the Indian government could really intimidate Western businesses the way the Chinese government has (though maybe there are, I don't know - would be curious if someone more knowledgeable could weigh in). Point being, Modi-as-Indian-Erdogan would be bad, but my inclination is to think that is someone the West can do business with.
*While the West kinda had blinders on about Erdogan in the early days (in the 2000s, The Economist invariably referred to him as "mildly Islamist"), I think you could argue that some of his macroeconomic and infrastructure policies were successful. But - even ignoring the authoritarianism - at this point he seems intent on undoing a lot of that with his embrace of monetary quackery.
If India became a big market the way the United States or China or Europe are, it could intimidate companies the way they do. India did ban TikTok, and several of the top YouTube videos of all time are children’s content from India (interestingly, the most watched YouTube video of all time is South Korean children’s content, though many people who have suffered through it many times may not know the Korean connection).
Good article Milan, I’m continually impressed by the quality of your work on these difficult subjects. Finding your writing voice isn’t an easy process but you are well on your way.
First, this quote: "We should also remember that opening our markets to China created an incentive to suppress criticism of the CCP and its policies in the West, and we should be cautious about the risk that pivoting to India will do the same."
-- I don't think we should ever apologize for a policy that led to hundreds of millions of people being able to escape grinding poverty, certainly not if the cost was to (temporarily) "suppress criticism of the CCP in the West." This should be the least of our concerns vis a vis India.
Second, we *do* want India to advance up the economic ladder in the same manner as China (and South Korea etc), and for the same reasons as above. And as that happens, I think we should worry less about India "playing Moscow and Washington off each other." Moscow has nothing to offer India (I can't imagine anyone wanting Soviet-style arms anymore). And economic development will embed India more in Western and (non-China) East Asian economies which will naturally lead to more shared interests.
Third, Modi makes me queasy but I don't know what to do about that. I dislike his democratic authoritarianism and his ugly ethnic politics but he (and India) won't change because we call them out. India is fundamentally a far more democratic and liberal country than China ever has been (or sadly probably ever will be), so I have hopes that economic development and greater interaction with developed economies will tame Modi-like politics over the longer term.
I don't think it would have been a big setback to profitable commercial interactions with China if the NBA had a little more courage or if Elon Musk were less of a hypocrite.
It's unfortunate if Modi is authoritarian-leaning, but that's just how developing countries work. I'd argue India has an exceptionally good democracy for a country with a GDP per capita of $2200! The US is presently allies with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. etc.
We should be working to strengthen India militarily regardless, because a strong India is a counterweight to China even if we're not traditional allies with them. They share a 2100 mile border, have fought several wars over it, and my understanding is that Modi doesn't fan nationalist sentiment against China now merely because India is too weak and he doesn't want to badly lose a border war with them. Our goal should be two gigantic, militarily powerful countries in Asia pre-occupied with each other. Thousands of years of human history tell us there's no way two superpowers can be allied when they're nextdoor neighbors. Meanwhile, America will continue to rely on one of her greatest strengths- that we're separated by two oceans from any potential trouble. A powerful India can help check a powerful China.
Realpolitik is ugly, cold and Machiavellian sometimes- let's play the long game here
>Our goal should be two gigantic, militarily powerful countries in Asia pre-occupied with each other.<
That sounds great. But one part of that equation probably needs to involve China no longer being quite so preoccupied with, uh, us. And right now we're not giving them much reason to drop said preoccupation. I mean, look at it from Beijing's perspective: which enemy is the more frightening?
My contention is that two superpowers cannot share a 2100 mile long border peacefully, much less when they have a multidecade history of skirmishes. A powerful India will automatically preoccupy China- no further effort is required on our part. Assisting India with military development, sharing critical technologies, sharing our defense industrial base etc. is a win-win for us
This is really good, but I think more attention needs to be paid to the abject failure of Congress Party. From the listless and unengaged PM Singh to the rank nepotism of the Gandhi family. I don’t think Raul deserves the charges against him obvie, but why the eff are the Gandhis still running CP?? It’s be like if Dems nominated Chelsea after Hillary lost in ‘16. CP and the Indian left have basically ceded the country to rightist Hindu nationalists and it really irks me.
I think that observers might give Modi and the BJP a bit too much credit on economic performance— growth has been lower and unemployment and inflation higher than they were under his predecessor, Congress’s, Manmoham Singh.
INC benefited from the results of the policies the BJP government put in place between 1998 - 2004 under Atal Bihari Vajpayee as PM. But INC's 2 term ended with corruption charges and slowing economic growth. Modi definitely underperformed in his first term as PM (2014 - 2019), but seems to have the right economic policies in place now. Geo-politics is also helping because of China decoupling and friend-shoring.
How much does China’s success influence the Indian public in terms of authoritarianism? If you look at Singapore, South Korea and especially China it sure looks like you need some political illiberalism to go from the third world to the first world in a generation or two.
China is a long way from first world status and I am more optimistic about India’s path from here than China’s - largely because of its robust and open political system vs Chinese autocracy.
While true this elides a bunch of important caveats.
Most prominently; that something like a 43% of that figure is gross capital formation, a huge fraction of which debt-driven investment in unproductive or unneeded physical plant, and this year net exports are likely to be another 5%.
In practice, Malaysia, which has a per capita GDP only a hair higher, affords its people a standard of living damned near twice what China does. Without the brutally authoritarian government, a substantially lower net gini index, more effective social provision, and stronger environmental protections.
We've been talking a lot about age in the context of American presidential politics, but Modi is no spring chicken himself. He's 72 years old. Younger than Joe Biden, sure, but not "young". This post talked a lot about the politics of "Modi" as though he was a unitary executive figure, but of course he's a prime minister put in power by the support of his political party.
I guess where I'm going with this is that instead of talking about whether "Modi" has illiberal tendencies, maybe the more important thing is to ask what the internal politics of his party the BJP are like. What sorts of leaders are competing within the BJP to be its next leader in five years or ten years? Are there separate "economic development" and "Hindu nationalist" strains within that compete with each other? Will the party be able to hold itself together without Modi as a unifying figure?
If we want to talk mid-term future, where India will be in fifteen years or so, then Modi will shape that future but he won't be that future. Because the future, as ever, belongs to the young (or at least middle aged).
Good article but correction needed: Quad refers to US, India, Australia, and Japan***. South Korea is only in "Quad Plus".
Fixed
As far as Modi’s illiberal tendencies go, one thing that I have heard persistently from left-leaning and liberal Indians is that most of the Indian media is run by friends of Modi and is ridiculously pro-Modi.
I also happened to catch an episode of the NDTV English-language news recently (there is a free to air channel in Australia that broadcasts a variety of foreign news programmes from around the world) NDTV was, as I understand it, one of the best regarded Indian news organisations. Recently, the Adani Group (run by one of Modi’s billionaire friends), bought the network.
It was 30 minutes of advertising for Modi.
Yes, speculating from a tiny piece of data, but it sure seemed consistent with the “Modi has autocratic tendencies and the place is veering away from liberal democracy” take to me.
Again like Erodgan!
And Orbán.
Read this as “And Oprah”
Yeah well there were those rumours that she was going to hijack the Democratic Party for her authoritarian program of mandatory book club attendance.
And socialist car distribution
Some background on the Gujarat riots.
For a long time, Gujarat has been a Hindutva laboratory. Or to be more precise, central Gujarat is a Hindutva laboratory. RSS activists are everywhere on the ground, running everything from soup kitchens, children's activities, to paramalitary organizations. The RSS at every moment has been fanning the flames of Hindu / Muslim conflict, making every every day legal , cultural etc. dispute between Hindus and Muslims into an existential threat. The result is that every conflict can turn into bloody riots. Ahmedabad has seen three major riots in the past already, in 1969 , 1985 and finally in 2002.
The fundamental difference between the previous riots and the 2002 riots was that the BJP was in power. After Muslim rioters burned down a train killing 300 Hindu pilgrims, a Congress would have called for calm and restraint. We saw radio silence from Modi. Moreover, for years, followed by deeply religious rhetoric. Moreover, Modi and his BJP predecessors had been hiring and promoting bigotted policemen for years, who personally could care less about anti-Muslim violence. As a result, anti-Muslim arose in far more places and took for longer to end than in normal circumstances.
The overwhelming majority of anti-Mulsim violence is incited by the RSS in non-BJP controlled states. The BJP portrays itself as the party of law and order. Violence in non-BJP states both polarises voters on religious lines and makes opposition look weak. As the BJP loses power in more and more states, I expect violence to become more common.
None of this is to exonerate Modi. While he himself might not have instigated the riots (although people like Amit Shah the home minister do know where to bodies are buried), Modi and his movement spent decades creating the environment where explosive violence became possible.
But RSS was formed in reaction to Muslim-led riots where Hindus, unarmed and unorganized, were massacred in the 1920s.
So? Long time ago and very bad too.
Good article. I too struggle with Erdogan and Modi. Both are unquestionably popular and I think unquestionably were elected democratically. But they’re also illiberal. Usually democracy and Liberalism (of which most conservatives and progressives across the world are adherents of, even if different sides of the philosophy). Usually Liberalism and democracy go hand in hand; the fact many non-Liberals can win democratically is both a point in democracy’s favor (I like to say democracy and Liberalism are the only ideologies and governments which would willingly hand power over to a different ideology), but a weakness as well.
To cut to the chase I think we have more in common with Erdogan, Modi and Orban than we don’t. They’re still somewhere in that grey area between autocrat and Democrat; liberal and despotism. All three benefit from popular support and democratic institutions. They are what George Washington would have been had he declined to leave office, and what FDR effectively was (a man so popular he couldn’t be beat). Which is to say Turkish, Hungarian and Indian democracy would benefit from more institutional reform. Term limits for the executive are a good idea. It remains to be seen if these men will end their National democracies or leave as merely popular, illiberal nationalists.
Wild guess: I think Orban very likely leaves office (perhaps kicking and screaming, but still, he'll go) if he loses an election, if only because of the EU. I think Erdogan probably doesn't, or at least he would need to lose by a big margin for it to happen. I'm inclined to think Modi would go as of now, but if he remains in power for another decade, maybe not.
I think democracy as in "rule decided by the people" works to a large extent in India. However, for liberalism to go hand in hand with democracy, you need a majority of the population to be well off enough and educated enough to understand and believe in liberalism. It was really a stroke of luck and hard work that India became a democracy in the first place (read India after Gandhi by Ramchandra Guha), and that was only because a large leadership of the Congress and adjacent organizations was schooled in western countries. However the non-elite of India are often too poor to care about liberalism, or still too steeped in beliefs that go contrary to liberalism. Perhaps what we are seeing in India is democracy (in terms of majority rule) actually taking its real form?
Democracy and Liberalism do not need to go together but I think both work best together
Modi as FDR is an essay I would love to read. It seems more helpful than discussing which of BJP's national policies count as illiberalism versus a kind of nationalist liberalism. This can get tricky when we've observed similar decades of a party dominating while remaking political economy in places like postwar Japan or Germany.
Ukraine is in a transitional state toward being a more open, modern democracy. Turkey had been kinda been stuck as a sort of hybrid regime thanks to military coups and India has been becoming more autocratic over time.
Direction of change matters.
Enjoyed the piece. Something else that should be injected into this discussion is India’s strategic status as a nuclear power actively pursuing expansion of its capabilities (especially on the submarine front) while remaining in a precarious position vis-a-vis Pakistan. It would be good for everyone if we could get those two pursuing steps to establish a safer posture.
>while remaining in a precarious position vis-a-vis Pakistan.<
India is also in a precarious position vis-a-vis China, complete with armed clashes and combat deaths within the last few years. And as of last week the two countries have deported each other's journalists (all of them).
Agreed. The situation along the Line of Actual Control is worrisome.
It's a tough neighborhood.
One important difference between Modi and Erdogan is that the BJP's dominance is only at the national level. The BJP has suffered a series of losses at the state and local level, including most recently in Karnataka. The BJP and it's allies have net lost states in more or less all of the last 3 years, and roughly 60% of India lives in opposition controlled states, with the percent likely to continue going down.
Moreover, while the BJP has a commanding majority in the Lok Sabha, it won this majority with only 37% of the vote. There are a lot of constituencies won with the narrowest of margins. Indeed in the upper house, the BJP and its coalition is already in a minority (although pseudo allies mean that the upper house doesn't really act as a check).
While the INC coming to power in 2024 is extremely unlikely, even a modest loss of votes will force the BJP to form a genuine coalition government, which will (for better or for worse) both temper the BJP's autocratic tendencies. While the opposition winning seems unlikely, a return to more small-d governance after 2024 is at least somewhat plausible.
I grew up in India in the 70s thru 90s, and, fwiw, I think the article is mostly correct and balanced. Couple of comments:
1) The Hindu-Muslim hostility is mutual and dates back centuries; several acts of communal violence, especially before 1980s, were often initiated by muslim vigilantes against the Hindus. Lately, it has been the other way around.
2) Congress ruled virtually unopposed after independence (1947 - 1977), when Indira Gandhi, after imposing emergency, lost to a united coalition of opposition parties; she came back to power in 1981, but was assassinated in 1984. The Congress formula for winning elections was simple: they had a lock on the backward caste Hindus (SC/ST) (23%), Muslims (12%) and upper class Hindus (7%) for a total of 42% All other vote was divided between several regional and national parties, BJP being one of them.
3) Congress leaders would often instigate communal riots to ensure muslims voted en-bloc for Congress; and Congress was often seen pandering to these groups. Did you know India was the first country to ban Satanic Verses, even before Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Iran? This was in late 1980s. That is when the BJP decided to exploit this pandering and began uniting Hindus across castes into a large enough vote bank to be able to win elections nationally. BJP was predominantly urban and middle class. Key events: Advani's Ram rath yatra (1990), Bombay bomb blasts (1993), Indian Parliament attack (2001).
4) BJP first came to power in 1998, and Congress made a comeback in 2004. Finally, BJP won again in 2013 under Modi's leadership. Congress, meanwhile, became increasingly known for dynastic rule (PM had to be from Nehru/Gandhi family) and corruption.
5) Modi, coming from a lower caste family, and by implementing policies that benefit the poor, has significantly expanded BJP's vote base, and the BJP won the last national elections with 37.4% of the vote (Congress got about 19%). So, a good opposition leader should be able to win nationally against Modi, but there is no leader of that stature today. Rahul Gandhi is widely reviled and mocked.
One final point regarding Rahul Gandhi's elimination from the parliament: what Rahul Gandhi said was worse than what has been reported here; he mentioned two absconding criminals with Modi last name, and then suggested he saw a pattern with ALL the Modis. So an individual with last name Modi took offense to this statement and filed a defamation case and won. I am sure there was politics involved, but a leader must face consequences for calling an entire community thieves for the actions of a few, especially in a country that is divided by caste, religion and region.
>there has to be consequence for a leader to call an entire community thieves for the actions of a few
I mean, no, there don't have to be any consequences. Free speech is an unmitigated good, and the government policing speech for insults or defamation is virtually always bad and abused by the powerful. Living in a free society means that some people will use their freedom to insult others, and that's OK. Clamping down on insults is always abused by the government against the opposition, always, in every country and every society that there ever was or will be
"I mean, no, there don't have to be any consequences. Free speech is an unmitigated good, and the government policing speech for insults or defamation is virtually always bad and abused by the powerful."
But that is your value system; should not Indians have a say in what is good or not for their society? After all this law exists in India, and India is a democracy and laws can be changed through the will of the people.
One can argue that free speech in the US is the reason we're facing the challenge from the extreme right (Alex Jones, Carlson Tucker, FOX news, Trump) who lie and lie and instigate hate and division. I personally agree that free speech is a good think and worth the cost, but people of other nationalities may not share that vision.
Well, I would encourage India and every other country to share our value system. My point in observing that the government power to police lies is always, always, always abused is meant to be persuasive. Is it the value system of India that the government can harass the opposition with bad-faith legal attacks? Is the value system of India fundamentally illiberal? I doubt it.
>India is a democracy and laws can be changed through the will of the people
Wellllll..... this gets into complicated stuff about constitutions, elitism and populism. The whole point of having a constitution with fundamental rights is, basically, 'this is the stuff that you don't get to vote on'. That's why democracies have an independent judiciary. I'm sure after 9/11 here in the US all kinds of civil liberties impositions on Muslims would've been popular- fortunately, the Bill of Rights isn't up for a vote or a popularity contest. Our judiciary struck down lots of things that the government tried to do, and whether they were popular with regular voters or not is irrelevant.
I would (in a friendly manner) encourage other countries to learn from our history and implement a strong constitution and a bill of rights that protects the right to criticize and even insult the government
I'll just say that one must defer to other countries to decide for themselves what is right for them. The main argument imperialistic Britain offered for ruling India was that Indians could not govern themselves.
Indian constitution was written with a lot of care, and the committee was headed by Jagjivan Ram who came from a very humble background, and he advocated for the rights of the SC/ST castes of India, including some of the most generous affirmative action policy in their favor.
For you to believe that every culture different from yours must adopt the exact same values smacks of a colonial mindset. The idea that the west is somehow better than everyone else, and that there are no flaws in the west. Many Indians look at the way African Americans have been treated by the US over the years, including today, and wonder how you could have been be so cruel and unjust.
Show some humility and let Indians govern themselves. India is a democracy where fair elections are held on a regular basis and I am sure they will get a few things wrong, but hopefully they will get the big things right.
I specifically said 'this is meant to be persuasive' lol. I said 'encourage' twice. I'm not proposing invading India and instituting American constitutional law- I'm just making a persuasive argument on the Internet. Lots of people not from the US have lots of strong opinions about how we should govern ourselves, and I don't always agree with them- but I don't think that they're somehow imposing on us. A persuasive argument is not colonialist or 'not letting Indians govern themselves'.
We all live in a world where our country's policies are up for critique from others, and that's OK. Free exchange of ideas on the Internet is fine :)
I found your statement that others must adopt your value system a bit offensive and condescending.
Of course you are welcome to criticize a certain law or policy of the Indian government that seems unwise, unjust or offensive in any other way.
Free speech is not absolute, and is, in fact, limited in several countries, including in the US as well as in Germany (no swastikaa etc.). Furthermore, there is a large segment of the Indian population that protests against this particular law, and it might be overturned in the future. But that particular law by itself does not prove that India does not have a liberal democracy in place. That is all I am trying to say. Rahul Gandhi is paying the price for breaking a law, there really is nothing more to than that.
There is this lazy thinking in the west that all developing countries like India are banana republics, which is neither accurate nor helpful. To be clear, I am not saying that that is what you were saying (or thinking), but wanted to provide some context behind my reaction to your original post.
I honestly believe that some basic limits on free speech is not such a bad thing, especially in India where hate speech can lead to riots and deaths. There are trade offs regarding where you draw the line, and each country/culture will determine what is right for them. I say this nicely - don't presume that you know where that line is for India. No one does, and it will come about through the political process in India over time.
The best we can expect from any culture country is that they hold free and fair elections periodically, ensure independent judiciary, allow freedom to the press and enforce rule of law. After this, we trust people (voters) to do what is right for their community/country. How else can we expect to have self governance?
One could argue that free speech is to blame for Jones Tucker and Trump but then one would be wrong
That is subjective, isn't it? Are you so sure about everything else in life?
Really enjoyed this piece. I've said this before, but I think it would be really cool get more content like this on SB - smart takes about different countries that try to inform Americans about things they may not be aware of. (It reminded me of Matt's Italy piece from last summer, which is one of my favorites on here.)
Regarding the thesis, I think the Erdogan analogy is a good one, and one I've thought of myself for Modi. But I think it's worth remembering...while Erdogan is, at this point*, quite bad, but he's never gonna be the Chinese Communist Party. India's a lot bigger than Turkey, so if Modi goes full Erdogan he'd probably be more powerful, but it's difficult for me to imagine him marshalling repression on the same scale as the CCP, and I'm not sure there are mechanisms by which the Indian government could really intimidate Western businesses the way the Chinese government has (though maybe there are, I don't know - would be curious if someone more knowledgeable could weigh in). Point being, Modi-as-Indian-Erdogan would be bad, but my inclination is to think that is someone the West can do business with.
*While the West kinda had blinders on about Erdogan in the early days (in the 2000s, The Economist invariably referred to him as "mildly Islamist"), I think you could argue that some of his macroeconomic and infrastructure policies were successful. But - even ignoring the authoritarianism - at this point he seems intent on undoing a lot of that with his embrace of monetary quackery.
If India became a big market the way the United States or China or Europe are, it could intimidate companies the way they do. India did ban TikTok, and several of the top YouTube videos of all time are children’s content from India (interestingly, the most watched YouTube video of all time is South Korean children’s content, though many people who have suffered through it many times may not know the Korean connection).
Good article Milan, I’m continually impressed by the quality of your work on these difficult subjects. Finding your writing voice isn’t an easy process but you are well on your way.
Good post, but I have some issues.
First, this quote: "We should also remember that opening our markets to China created an incentive to suppress criticism of the CCP and its policies in the West, and we should be cautious about the risk that pivoting to India will do the same."
-- I don't think we should ever apologize for a policy that led to hundreds of millions of people being able to escape grinding poverty, certainly not if the cost was to (temporarily) "suppress criticism of the CCP in the West." This should be the least of our concerns vis a vis India.
Second, we *do* want India to advance up the economic ladder in the same manner as China (and South Korea etc), and for the same reasons as above. And as that happens, I think we should worry less about India "playing Moscow and Washington off each other." Moscow has nothing to offer India (I can't imagine anyone wanting Soviet-style arms anymore). And economic development will embed India more in Western and (non-China) East Asian economies which will naturally lead to more shared interests.
Third, Modi makes me queasy but I don't know what to do about that. I dislike his democratic authoritarianism and his ugly ethnic politics but he (and India) won't change because we call them out. India is fundamentally a far more democratic and liberal country than China ever has been (or sadly probably ever will be), so I have hopes that economic development and greater interaction with developed economies will tame Modi-like politics over the longer term.
The point is that greater economic development and interaction with developed economies did not tame.
I don't think it would have been a big setback to profitable commercial interactions with China if the NBA had a little more courage or if Elon Musk were less of a hypocrite.
It's unfortunate if Modi is authoritarian-leaning, but that's just how developing countries work. I'd argue India has an exceptionally good democracy for a country with a GDP per capita of $2200! The US is presently allies with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. etc.
We should be working to strengthen India militarily regardless, because a strong India is a counterweight to China even if we're not traditional allies with them. They share a 2100 mile border, have fought several wars over it, and my understanding is that Modi doesn't fan nationalist sentiment against China now merely because India is too weak and he doesn't want to badly lose a border war with them. Our goal should be two gigantic, militarily powerful countries in Asia pre-occupied with each other. Thousands of years of human history tell us there's no way two superpowers can be allied when they're nextdoor neighbors. Meanwhile, America will continue to rely on one of her greatest strengths- that we're separated by two oceans from any potential trouble. A powerful India can help check a powerful China.
Realpolitik is ugly, cold and Machiavellian sometimes- let's play the long game here
>Our goal should be two gigantic, militarily powerful countries in Asia pre-occupied with each other.<
That sounds great. But one part of that equation probably needs to involve China no longer being quite so preoccupied with, uh, us. And right now we're not giving them much reason to drop said preoccupation. I mean, look at it from Beijing's perspective: which enemy is the more frightening?
My contention is that two superpowers cannot share a 2100 mile long border peacefully, much less when they have a multidecade history of skirmishes. A powerful India will automatically preoccupy China- no further effort is required on our part. Assisting India with military development, sharing critical technologies, sharing our defense industrial base etc. is a win-win for us
What could we *possibly* do to get Beijing to moderate their current stance towards us?
This is really good, but I think more attention needs to be paid to the abject failure of Congress Party. From the listless and unengaged PM Singh to the rank nepotism of the Gandhi family. I don’t think Raul deserves the charges against him obvie, but why the eff are the Gandhis still running CP?? It’s be like if Dems nominated Chelsea after Hillary lost in ‘16. CP and the Indian left have basically ceded the country to rightist Hindu nationalists and it really irks me.
I think that observers might give Modi and the BJP a bit too much credit on economic performance— growth has been lower and unemployment and inflation higher than they were under his predecessor, Congress’s, Manmoham Singh.
INC benefited from the results of the policies the BJP government put in place between 1998 - 2004 under Atal Bihari Vajpayee as PM. But INC's 2 term ended with corruption charges and slowing economic growth. Modi definitely underperformed in his first term as PM (2014 - 2019), but seems to have the right economic policies in place now. Geo-politics is also helping because of China decoupling and friend-shoring.
Paging Frigid!
How much does China’s success influence the Indian public in terms of authoritarianism? If you look at Singapore, South Korea and especially China it sure looks like you need some political illiberalism to go from the third world to the first world in a generation or two.
China is a long way from first world status and I am more optimistic about India’s path from here than China’s - largely because of its robust and open political system vs Chinese autocracy.
China’s per capita GDP is $12,732 while India’s is $2,600.
While true this elides a bunch of important caveats.
Most prominently; that something like a 43% of that figure is gross capital formation, a huge fraction of which debt-driven investment in unproductive or unneeded physical plant, and this year net exports are likely to be another 5%.
In practice, Malaysia, which has a per capita GDP only a hair higher, affords its people a standard of living damned near twice what China does. Without the brutally authoritarian government, a substantially lower net gini index, more effective social provision, and stronger environmental protections.
There are models other than China’s out there.
That sounds much like the US in 1870, Germany in 1910, or Korea in 1970.
We don’t know much about how countries develop so I’m very hesitant to overindex on things like corruption.
And birth rates. China is going to get old before it gets rich. Less likely for India.
A growing body of evidence (or, uh, lack of evidence) calls into question this thesis. In short, the middle income trap may not exist:
https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1656334927494000640
It may not but China’s growth model is highly likely to lead to a cul-de-sac with its current debt and investment overhangs.