JOIN USIndia: A vilified ‘Vishwaguru’?
Last week New Delhi received a thunderclap from much of the Islamic world even as the monsoonal thunderstorms remained weeks away. The dramatic responses stemmed from some singularly ill-considered remarks on the part of two BJP spokespersons, Naveen Jindal and Nupur Sharma, about the Prophet Mohammad. Declaring them to be “fringe elements”, the BJP lost little time in dropping them from the party. The damage, however, had already been done, with countries ranging from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with whom India had excellent relations, to Turkey, which under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has had somewhat frosty dealings with India over various issues mostly related to the status of India’s Muslim minority, sharply upbraiding New Delhi for these inflammatory remarks.
The BJP government, in the past, has been mostly dismissive of external criticisms of India’s human rights record as well as any questions about the condition of Muslims in India. Among other matters, it had shrugged off the concerns that the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) had expressed about growing attacks on minorities in the country. Interesting enough, with marked exceptions, few Muslim countries had rebuked India about the deteriorating conditions of Muslims, especially since Narendra Modi secured a second term in office after leading the BJP to victory in 2019 polls. On this occasion, given the extent of the outrage, the government felt compelled to take action even though, in the end, these gestures may well prove to be both superficial and cosmetic.
The reasons are not difficult to identify. Unlike previous BJP governments this one is not reliant on a coalition for its survival. Furthermore, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s predecessor, A B Vajpayee, who had spent a lifetime in parliament, was used to the hauling and pulling of parliamentary politics. He knew when to make a tactical concession, when to beat a strategic retreat and when to stick to his guns. Modi, on the other hand, with a firm grip over his party in parliament, has little use for debate, discussion and compromise. Most importantly, in his second term in office he has given free rein to the ideological forces within the BJP, as reflected in several moves – ranging from the decision to abrogate the Article 370 for Jammu and Kashmir to introducing the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
In the wake of the outrage over the comments made by Sharma and Jindal, the government acted with alacrity for three vital reasons. First, nearly eight million Indians live and work in various parts of the Middle East with over 300,000 in the UAE alone. They contribute close to $ 80 billion annually to India’s GDP through remittances. Consequently, India can ill-afford to alienate the Arab Muslim countries, not to mention Iran. Second, India is acutely dependent on access to hydrocarbons from the region. More than 50% of India’s petroleum comes from the Middle East. India’s exposure on the petroleum front amounts to what political scientists refer to as vulnerability interdependence. A disruption in supplies could have disastrous consequences for India’s economy. Third and finally, India depends on many of the Gulf states for counter-terrorism cooperation. Consequently, the sheer material costs of being at odds with the Muslim Middle East are far too high.
.jpg)
This official attempt to mollify the aggrieved sentiments of much of the Muslim world will, in all likelihood, persist for the foreseeable future. The party cadres, no doubt, have been warned not to make any ill-considered public remarks. Their enforced silence will also placate the critics from the Muslim world for the time being. However, the underlying issue that the BJP confronts cannot be easily handled.
The reasons are fairly straightforward. At the outset, Modi, his alter ego, Amit Shah, and Yogi Adityanath, the principal stalwarts in the party, are ideologues. They may make nods of convenience, when faced with particular political exigencies such as in the current situation.
However, it is hard to visualize how these individuals who remain passionately committed to an ideological agenda are likely to abandon its fundamental tenets. In turn, as long as they adhere to the core elements of the party’s ideology, statements like the ones that have so roiled the diplomatic waters are bound to transpire again. Even if this triumvirate, as the election campaign for the 2024 national elections loom, manage to avoid any feckless remarks, there is simply no guarantee that others, especially those within the rank and file, will maintain such discipline. Given that the Muslim world has now directed its gaze upon India it is all but certain that their people and especially their elites, will not turn their eyes away from the electoral fray in India. Under these circumstances, the troubles that New Delhi confronted this past week are not likely to be a one-off event. Given the economic clout that much of the Muslim Middle East wields over India, on another occasion they may well decide to use their leverage. Their actions, the next time around, could well go beyond the gestures that they have made on this occasion. For example, they could go well beyond removing Indian goods from supermarket shelves. Instead, they could expel Indian workers, cut back on counter-terrorism cooperation and limit hydrocarbon sales.
With its commitment to the implementation of a staunch anti-secular ideology, the government has now backed itself into a most unenviable position. Sadly, with a weak, disorganized and dispirited opposition, it has been able to act as a juggernaut.
Thus far, there was little at home or abroad to stop it in its tracks. However, now it may be encountering obstacles that may be difficult to roll over. The embrace of bigotry on the part of this government, despite its willingness to ward off most international criticism, may well prove to be its Waterloo. As the recent episode has underscored, a range of countries are losing their patience with the growing climate of intolerance that the government appears to be abetting.
(The writer is a Distinguished Professor of Political Science and holds the Tagore Chair in Indian Cultures and Civilizations at Indiana University, US)