Modi 2019

by Sahar Pirzada*

*The author is an analyst and writer.

Abstract

(Who is Modi? The architect of communal party exclusion.¹ The unapologetic power behind pogrom in Gujrat; the flag-bearer of neo-fascist kinesis on the Hindutva paradigm. Or is he a charismatic leader of the “Brotherhood in Saffron” ² that world leaders embrace despite public opinion as the spearhead of an emerging economic superpower? Is he the man who has laid siege to an entire state and imprisoned thousands of innocent people in Kashmir? Certainly, he is the man who, unprovoked, attacked the only nuclear armed Muslim country next door. Is he a Head of State who was denied entry to the USA based on his alleged criminal history? Perhaps conversely, he is the man who was awarded by Muslin and non-Muslim countries alike for peace and for improvement of bilateral relations their highest civil awards – a blink of an eye after his blatant military aggression towards Pakistan.

Politician, PM, priest, pundit or exclusionist promoter of polemic, whatever he might be he cannot be ignored. The man is a personification of Hindutva. – Author)

The Hindutva Machinery & Modi:

Across the border from us, in an allegedly secular state, things are becoming dire. The power matrix in India is changing and it is not merely as a benign economic reality any longer, India is moving forward in strategic ‘Hindu nationalist’ shifts, morphing from secular and pluralistic to ‘majoritarian’. The blueprint is Hindutva ideology. A row back from Indian nationalism to Hindu nationalism or what is also referred to as ‘cultural nationalism’ which the “Bharatiya Jan Sangh and its successor the Bharatiya Janata Party swear by. ‘Cultural nationalism’ is a deceptive cover for Hindu religious nationalism.” ³ To understand Prime Minister Modi we must understand better the workings of Hindutva, the philosophy that drives him, but which is gradually but surely wearing thin his veneer as international statesman as it hurls him on a domestic front to power.

“The term Hindutva coined by VD Sarvarkar in 1923 is not to be confused with Hindu dharma as it possesses an element of militancy and zealotry which was later injected by Swami Sarwarkar, in an effort to reform Hinduism. The ideology was later picked up by the Arya Samaj as their credo who believed, as Lajpat Rai published in an article that, “Hindus are a nation in themselves, because they represent a civilization all their own… A question has often haunted us, asleep or awake, as to why is it that notwithstanding the presence among us of great, vigorous and elevating truths, and of the very highest conception of morality, we [Hindus] have been a subject race, held down for so many centuries by sets of people who were neither physically nor spiritually nor even intellectually so superior to us as a fortiori to demand our subjection.’’

“It was precisely this question that preoccupied both B.S. Moonje and K.B. Hedgewar, from which they derived the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) as the answer. In a densely fascinating way, a logic was started that severely minimized British colonialism within a much longer ‘historical’ frame of Hindu resistance to what were conceived as all ‘foreign invaders’. This logic culminated in Savarkar’s Hindutva (1923) and Swami Shraddhanand’s Hindu Sangathan – Saviour of a dying race (1926), both written in the midst of one of the most violent troubled periods of anti-colonial agitation during the first manifestation of a genuinely mass anti-colonial movement, but which can be read with barely any indication within them that British colonialism was even present. (A similar theme preoccupied later Hindutva ideologues: the British colonial period was effectively dismissed or conceived as relatively being, even civilizing and moral in character in comparison with the early or high medieval periods of Mughal rule, which were seen as periods of ruthless oppression and genocide of Hindus).” It is a war on history and a revenge on the Muslims of today for imagined wrongs of the past.⁴

So, in a way as ‘The Heart of Darkness’ by Joseph Conrad is a story highlighting the misapprehension of the British about the white man’s burden and his civilizing influence on British colonial subjects as clearly rejected in the narrative, here we have the Hindu ideologues accepting it. Ergo, in the aftermath of this belief, focusing their ire on the Mughals for imaginary crimes of genocide and thus by proxy, on the Muslims of today. This is the birth of Hindutva as a machinery in motion. “Hindu revivalism, a growing force in India, is rooted in the belief that Hinduism is endangered, and the largest group committed to Hindu revivalism in India is the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (the RSS)” ⁵ and its political affiliate, the BJP.

Bande Matram was anti-Muslim poem written by Bankimchandra Chatterjee in the spread of the concept of Hindu nationalism which was promoted by some as India’s National anthem. It supervened into a virtual anthem for the contemporary Hindutva movement and an aggressive communal feeling. Depicted as ‘Mother India’ and Mother India as goddess Durga who became one with the country, ⁶ Bande Mataram became the hymn for the revolutionaries of this ideology and continues to be to this day.

Hindu nationalism is militant and, according to the1924 writings of Lala Lajpat Rai, Hindu revivalists have left nothing undone to create a strictly exclusive and communal Hindu feeling. He was of the belief that “Hindus are a nation in themselves”. This could have been a positive thing for India but according to a paper by BR Purhoit, Hindu nationalism tried to supplant Indian nationalism and the negative role of this movement became more prominent for India’s growth than its positive elements. It reached its peak under Hindu Mahasabaha and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.⁷

An important aspect of the Hindu revivalist movement is their approach to the ‘Two Nation Theory”. Lala Lajpat Rai proposed in 1902 and reiterated in 1909 ⁸ that Hindus constitute a separate nation. This thought finally grew into the All India Hindu Mahasabha which aimed to safeguard Hindu interests all across India after making significant inroads into the political machinery of India.

Modi’s India can be understood better in light of this ideology under the Arya Samaj’s, All India Shuddi Sabha ⁹ who prioritized Hindu conversions and the “reclaiming of neo-Muslims, and neo-Christians and to purify, uplift and return to the Hindu fold.” Later a more prominent body came up the tide of influence called the Rashtrya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) which drew on the ideology of Sarvarkar’s Hindutva. The RSS set up the Jan Sangh which grew to be the Janta Party. This later rose and revived itself like a phoenix as the Bharatya Janta Party (BJP) under the strict doctrine of cultural/Hindu nationalism. The belief that they are one, with one Hindu blood running through their veins, with one culture, one ‘sanskriti’ which according to them is the only thing worth preserving in this civilization.

Sarvarker’s exclusionist Hindutva stance has stained the colour saffron, the colour of the BJP, based on ‘cultural nationalism’ versus Indian nationalism where even someone born in India does not belong to India. This is the seed that has reaped the CAA, the Citizens Amendment Act and the NRC, the National Register of Citizens aimed at isolating and eventually expelling Muslims from the land.

This is a gift of Modi to the Muslims in 2019. A ‘Modiavellian’ strategic maneuver towards the far Right, towards Hindutva doctrine.

Modiavellian Maneuvers and the CAA:

The anti-hero of the moment, the dark agent provocateur in the theatre of Indian politics at present is the anti-Muslim citizenship law that violates India’s secular constitution, the Citizens Amendment Act of 1955. This new law is an amendment to the previous legislation. It allows Indian citizenship to “persecuted” minorities – Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsi & Christians from Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan, but makes no reference to Muslims. It is targeted to marginalize and exclude Muslims and set the ground for conversions to Hinduism. The bill was first proposed in Parliament in July 2016 and was recently ratified by the Indian President as an amendment to the 1955 Citizenship Act. Experts argue that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to equality. The legislation was pushed through by the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP). Critics are of the view that it is a discriminatory legislation based on PM Narendra Modi’s Hindu supremacist agenda that he has pushed through since he came to power 6 years ago. ¹⁰ The very idea of India was opposed to the Two Nation Theory that was the basis of Pakistan’s creation . It was opposed to the Indian view that the State must refuse to discriminate between citizens on the basis of religion. In light of current happenings, it seems India has been an incognito theocratic state all along and is finally coming out of its guise to openly embrace its own Hindutva Two Nation Theory as proposed by Lala Lajpal Rai.

The Citizenship Amendment Act was introduced by Modi in a strategic move towards ‘cultural’ or Hindu nationalism and in view of the assertion that the Hindu nation can only be so if foreign elements merge into Hindustan with the Hindu race, Hindu culture, Hindu religion and Hindu language that complete the concept of nation. In a BBC report, Historian Mukul Kesavan said that the bill is “couched in the language of refuge and seemingly directed at foreigners, but its main purpose is the delegitimation of Muslims’ citizenship.”¹¹ Golwalkar’s Hindutva ideology at the centre of this shift gives the grim choice of either glorifying the Hindu race and striving to achieve this goal or being outrightly considered traitors as all others are enemies of the nation. Foreign elements must adopt the culture or live at Hindu mercy till they are allowed to do so. “They must lose their separate existence and merge into the Hindu race or may stay wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment – not even citizens’ rights.” ¹² The bill led to widespread protests across India, especially in Assam, where in August 2 million citizens were left off the register. This wave of public angst is seen to be fuelled also by what is assumed to be a link to a strategically timed but previously perceived as innocuous, National Register of Citizens (NRC), which is not the same thing as CAA. NRC is a list of people who can prove they came into India by March 1971, a day before Bangladesh became independent. So then why is the NRC controversial? Though previously not understood to be of any connection to CAA, the NRC dynamic has been manipulated pre-election by the Modi government with electoral dividend in mind. Modi had, in the past, supported it but then claimed it was error-ridden before its final publication because a lot of Bengali Hindus – who are a strong BJP voter-base – were also left out of the list and would possibly become illegal immigrants. Modi wanted to use them to win the election before a quick chuck outside the Indian border.

Bangladeshi immigrants, it was feared, post-1971 independence would overrun the local population in bordering Indian states. Ironically or strategically, Narendra Modi has construed a similar plan now in Kashmir by unilaterally revoking the states special status and Article 370. What they feared in their border states with Bangladesh, they have willfully engineered in Kashmir.

These are exactly the underlying mechanics of what has transpired under Modi. Now there is no bar on Indians from mainland India to buy land in Kashmir, sprout communities and take over business and investment opportunities, thereby, marginalizing the Kashmiris in their own land. This will change the demographic composition of their homeland. Non-Hindus, as mentioned earlier, according to Hindutva ideology do not deserve preferential treatment or citizens’ rights and will be allowed to stay till it is the will of the Hindus – clearly asserting their privilege, Hindu-privilege.

This view of the BJP and Modi can be traced all the way back to Golwalker and lies at the heart of the Sangh Parivar (family). The view is that no one can be allowed to stand on the same footing as Hindustan of the Hindus because the land belongs only to them. This belief was reinforced in the 1920s by the Shuddi (Purification Movement) and more recently Modis “Ghar Wapsi” Movement. This also sheds light on the forced conversions and rejection of rights to non-Hindus who are considered neo-Christians & neo-Muslims under the belief that they were all originally Hindu. Ghar Wapsi (return to home) is a series of “reconversion” activities, facilitated by Indian Hindu organisations like Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), to facilitate reconversion of Christians and Muslims to their religion of birth, Hinduism. It has been a subject of public discussion since 2014. Religious liberty has been curbed and these edicts testify that in a way religion is now a matter of the state.

The ideas expounded by Sarvarkar are the strategy of Modi. This “majoritarian nationhood idea was that the racial being of India was identified with India and no one had the right to challenge them. “It is absurd to call them a community in India. The Germans are a nation and the Jews a community, the Turks are a nation in Turkey and the Arabs and Armenians a community. The Hindus are a nation in India, in Hindustan and the Muslims a minority community.” ¹³ According to A G Noorani – an eminent Indian scholar and an expert on constitutional issues – India has developed a doctrine that may be called a divine right of the majority to rule the minority. Any sharing of power with the minority is called communalism while the monopolizing of power by the majority is called nationalism. It has been observed by scholars that Hindu communalism bears the stamp of an Indian version of fascism with its stress on cultural superiority, militarism, emphasis on religious solidarity and exclusion of religious or ethnic groups.

The Hindutva majoritarian texture of Modi’s government can be gauged through inciting remarks against minorities and protesters against CAA like the one made by BJP MLA Somashekar Reddy in Karnataka, “ It has been five months that we are in power and if you do too much ‘nakhra’(drama) imagine what will happen to you when we come for you” He also said, “ Congress people are idiots, you believe them and then come out on the streets. We are 80% and you are 18%. What will happen to you if we hit back? Be careful when you are in this country.” ¹⁴

Kashmir, Article 370, CAA and NRC are all moves by Modi in that direction of Hindu extremism. These are some of the highlights of his interaction so far with Pakistan and the Muslim world in 2019, flashpoints to war, Modiavellan maneuvers so to speak. It is a strategy designed to polarize India and keep it on a permanent boil so as to legitimize the extremist texture of the BJP narrative. Modi quite unapologetically subverts the secular character of India, for example the willful neglect of Muslims and the complete exclusion of Muslim representation in UP Assembly elections. Under Modi, the Home Minister Amit Shah has referred to Bangladeshi immigrants as termites, and infiltrators and a threat to national security.¹⁵ The CAA is a blatantly discriminatory bill that wants to give citizenship to persecuted minorities in the neighbouring countries but not to the Rohingya from Myanmar or to minorities from Pakistan, Bengal and Afghanistan. Also, the CAA and NRC is closely linked because “tens of thousands of Bengali Hindu migrants who were not included in the NRC can still get citizenship to stay on in Assam state… If the government goes ahead with implementing the nationwide NRC then those who find themselves excluded from it will be divided into 2 categories (predominantly)Muslims, who will be deemed illegal migrants, but are now immunized by the Citizens Amendment Bill if they can show that their country of origin is Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan.” ¹⁶

Ayodhya Bears the Modi Stamp:

In addition to this alienation and proposed expulsion, the situation further accumulates heat with instances such as the ruling on Babri Masjid/Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, a sensitive issue for Muslims. The Supreme Court has decided to give Muslims 5 acres of land at an alternate site to build a mosque and the original site will undergo the construction of a new temple within three months. The issue with Ram mandir rests around a plot of land of 2.77 acres (1.12 hectares) in Ayodhya, a city in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh. In excess of seven decades into the past, right-wing Hindu campaigners have been pushing to build a grand temple at Ayodhya dedicated to Ram, who they believe was born on the site where the Mughals later built the Babri Mosque. In pre-partition India, the British, in the interest of keeping peace allowed both Muslims and Hindus to pray there – the Muslims inside and the Hindus outside. Shortly after partition, without the enforced restraint of the colonial masters, an idol of Ram was unlawfully placed by Hindu hard liners inside the building. Preempting violence, the Indian government locked the main gate. Lawsuits were filed by religious groups seeking control.

In the 1980s, Hindu nationalists in the fledgling Bharatiya Janata Party, along with Modi as one of the organizers, launched a campaign to replace the religious identity held by the land. Following this, on December 6, 1992, a riled-up Hindu mob gathered and, in the presence of senior BJP leaders, demolished much of the mosque. Nationwide riots ensued in which more than 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, lost their lives. The reason this is still a burning issue – given the general apathy of our milieu – is that it brought religious identity back to the center of Indian politics which since the arrival of Modi on the scene has been Hindutva-centric, staunch, intolerant and exclusionary – not to mention militant.

Hardline Hindu nationalists seized on the temple dispute to help legitimize exclusionary politics. In 2014, only 3.7% of members of parliament’s lower house were Muslim, compared to 9% in 1980, even as the Muslim share of the population rose to 14.2% from 11.1% in the same period. A verdict in favor of building a Ram Temple at Ayodhya by the Supreme Court would be touted as a political victory for Modi, who was easily re-elected to a second term in 2019. The BJP has included a call for that in every election manifesto since 1996.¹⁷

Such social and religious snubbing can only breed resentment among the two religious groups who are to live in geographical proximity. Peace can never be a successful endeavor trapped in an atmosphere of festering rage.

The Year Modi Flew Planes:

2019 was the year Narendra Modi flew planes. Remotely through his Air Force, across the border into Pakistan territory. It was also the year he was going into re-election for a second term.

In February 2019 Indian jets flew into Pakistan. According to New Delhi a large number of terrorists and some senior leaders of the Islamist group Jaish-e-Mohammad were killed. Pakistan denied that there were any casualties besides a dead bird and a fallen tree.

As a response to this brazen act of war Pakistan retaliated by carrying out strikes along the Line of Control to demonstrate its “right, will and capability for self-defense.” ¹⁸ Thereafter two Indian planes entered Pakistan Air Space again and were shot down, one crashing on either side of the border. India only accepted that one plane had been lost and that they had also shot down one Pakistani plane – a statement not authenticated by international watchdogs. What ensued was the capture of Indian pilot Abhinandan who was offered the now-immortalized ‘cup of tea’ that sent the media into a frenzy with brownie points being earned on the Pakistani side. This turned out to be a political triumph for Pakistan as Pakistan returned the Indian pilot two days later as a gesture of goodwill.

The skirmish did provide a short term gain for Modi as after the air strikes by India BJP supporters took to the roads in jubilation and set off fireworks to set a national mood favouring its leader aimed at showing that in a run up to elections, support for Modi was surging. It was also meant to show that “patriotism might be having a greater influence than low farm income and job growth.” ¹⁹ Walter Anderson (author of the book ‘Brotherhood in Saffron’) mentioned in an interview that took place in 2014, that the economy would be the BJPs biggest challenge in 2019.²⁰ The other concern for BJP that Anderson pointed out was that there was a segment of the BJP electorate that would not vote for the Hindutva ideology represented by the BJP but instead, for economic prosperity and job opportunities that were the mandate of the party. The economic reality in India today does not reflect that, especially the condition of the farmers who are combating circumstances dire enough to lead to a trend of suicide as the only alternate to escaping their strife. Economists at State Bank of India said “the market is likely to gain after the strikes as they will look at the action that builds a positive deterrence illustrating decisiveness in our foreign and national security policy.” ²¹ A leading Indian pollster and Director of the CSDS think-tank, Sanjay Kumar, stated, “I think this is going to boost the electoral prospects of the BJP because people are generally in a celebration mood, that the government has been able to teach a lesson to Pakistan.” ²² Earlier, Modi, in the run up to the elections, had also threatened to cut off an already water-insecure Pakistan’s water in violation of the Indus Water Treaty. This kind of muscle flexing was meant to distract from economic disappointment at home and discredit opponents within India.

Ironically, Modi, after his initial flush stood karmically robbed of his image as a hero. This engineered design was meant to garner pre-election support for Modi, but he stood in the public eye, as the ‘face that launched a thousand ships’ so to speak but brought home defeat; and two fallen metal birds. The skirmish did not go the way it was planned other than the temporary economic boost it ushered. The engagement resulted in a momentary deflection from issues and an ephemeral image amelioration. He came across as the person behind the escalation between two nuclear armed countries threatening peace in the region. Inside India, to some, he was seen as the man who lost to Pakistan, a country with comparatively lesser military capability, so his humiliation was public. What the escapade did show, however, was that Pakistan perhaps exceeded in military acumen.

But despite that setback, Narendra Modi won the election for a second term as Prime Minister which is clear evidence that the skirmish was for personal benefit and was initiated as a pre-election image builder. That the two nuclear armed and hostile states almost came to an outright war that would impact the whole world was of no consequence. All politicians play politics but when their toys threaten world peace someone somewhere needs to take stock.

A Special Gift for Kashmir:

In an audacious and unprecedented move, the Indian government under Modi in August 2019 decided to cleave the contested Himalayan region of Kashmir and change the constitutional settlement guaranteeing its semi-autonomous status. Jammu and Kashmir, including the Kashmir valley, is the subject of a long running dispute with Pakistan. It is an act that will downgrade the Himalayan region from statehood to a territory. Kashmir is the only Muslim-majority state under India and it has been the basis for two wars between the nuclear armed states. The world conflict tracker shows its conflict status as worsening. This announcement regarding status change in Kashmir was made without discussion with the Kashmir Legislature. The Pakistani government responded to this action by calling it “irresponsible, unilateral and irrational” and said that it would “exercise all possible options to counter the illegal steps”.

Clearly an act designed to exacerbate tension, it was preceded by firing of cluster munitions by India over the Line of Control and deployment of 10000 extra troops to Kashmir. Kashmiris were isolated from the rest of the world by the cutting of phone lines, stopping of access to the internet and a complete communications blackout along with the restricting of movement by citizens. Most prominent politicians were put under house arrest or in jail. At least 4000 people have been arrested and held under India’s Public Safety Act (PSA), a controversial law allowing authorities to jail someone for up to two years without a charge.

In 2014 when BJP won in Jammu & Kashmir it weaseled its way into the opposition party headed by Mehbooba Mufti (now in prison) of the Peoples Democratic Party in Kashmir. Being poles apart the two have worked together on a host of issues since 2014 up until 2019. Contentious issues like Article 370 were defamed but not dropped. In 2015 a ruling had been issued by the Kashmir High Court rebutting India’s claim on the disputed territory as being part of India. It further ruled that Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, accepting a special status for J & K, is beyond abrogation repeal or amendment. ²³ The 2 significant provisions favouring Kashmir in the 1950 Constitution of India were Article 370 and Article 35A. Article 35A gave only “permanent residents” of Kashmir the right to own property. As a result, Jammu and Kashmir could make its own rules relating to permanent residency, ownership of property and fundamental rights. It could also bar Indians from outside the state from purchasing property or settling there. Article 370 gave Indian Administered Kashmir autonomy in everything except defence, foreign policy and communication. The article allowed the State its own constitution, a separate flag and freedom to make laws.

Since the BJP came into power in May 2019 it has wanted Article 370 of the Indian Constitution revoked. Opposition to this constitutional provision has increased in tandem with the rise of Hindu nationalism, the cornerstone of Hindutva ideology.

The semi-autonomous status finds its roots in the partition of India when Kashmir’s Hindu ruler decided to join India under this special provision – a provision which has since then worn thin. Modi, tapping into the Hindu and Hindutva-centric vote bank had promised to make this happen so he is delivering on his electoral promise at whatever cost.

The vulnerability and threat to Kashmiri citizens is quite real and their fear palpable as this kind of action is reminiscent of the atrocities faced by the Palestinians in Gaza and the West bank. They are a people under siege, displaced and persecuted in their own land – marginalized by Israeli settlements backed by the Israeli government. We see a parallel situation springing up in Kashmir; unmasked and unapologetic in its intent.

The lockdown in Kashmir continues with the world turning a blind eye. It is a blatant violation of human rights yet it has sparked no meaningful action from the world. What is most lamentable is that the Muslim world, especially the Arab world, has also remained silent on this. Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman have not issued any statement over the issue, while Saudi Arabia has just urged restraint and expressed concern. The UAE has been supportive of India – calling the decision to downgrade the status of Kashmir an internal matter. In exchange for Modis unscrupulous intervention in the disputed area of Kashmir which is a flashpoint for war in the Muslim world he was awarded by leaders of the Muslim world such as UAE, Qatar and Bahrain just in 2019 for their highest National Awards:

1- The King Hammad order of the Renaissance, Bahraun- August 2019

2- Order of Zayed, the UAEs highest civilian award – August 2019

3- Rule of Nishan Izzuddeen, Maldives – June 2019.

In previous years he was awarded:

4- Grand Collar of the State of Palestine – February 2018

5- Amir Amanullah Khan Award- Afghanistan 2016

6- King Abdul Aziz Sash Award – Saudi Arabia April 2016.

This might have something to do with the annual $2billion trade between India and the Gulf Arab countries. ²⁴

Meanwhile, because of Narendra Modi, Kashmir suffers in crippling silence. 1.5 million children are cooped up, anxious and still out of schools since both public and private schools were shut down in August of last year. Of the few private schools that have dared to resume, attendance remains low due to fear of violence and persecution by Indian forces. The highest attendance in school has been recorded at 3 %. “The long school closures in the valley are causing major disruptions in young people’s educational and professional development, producing feelings of insecurity, helplessness, and demoralization,” said Haley Duschinski, an anthropologist at Ohio University specializing in Kashmir. ²⁵

There is a health and food crisis in Kashmir. Doctors have lost contact with patients, including patients with cancer. Surgeries have been cancelled and ordinary healthcare is not available to citizens due to a lack of access and a shortage of medical supplies. Patients with chronic illnesses who rely on government insurance schemes are facing problems due to the prevailing situation and communications lockdown.

Mushtaq Ahmad Baba, a 47-year-old vegetable seller, said the health program normally provides free dialysis for his kidney disease. But he’s had to pay out of his own pocket since hospitals haven’t been able to register and process claims online. “I have no choice but to discontinue the procedure if I’m unable to [use] the facility for free,” he said.²⁶

This is exactly what the Congress talks of as “Saffron Terror.”

The lives of millions in India’s only Muslim-majority region have been upended since August 5th, 2019. The ineptitude and indifference of the world to the suffering is clear. Their helplessness is palpable, and the surrounding silence is loud and haunting. There have been some faint and feeble voices that have reacted to the situation and some of those voices against Modis lockdown in Kashmir have been:

The United States Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, said in a statement that the US hopes “to see rapid action – the lifting of the restrictions and the release of those who have been detained”. She added that the US is “concerned by widespread detentions, including those of politicians and business leaders, and the restrictions on the residents of Jammu and Kashmir”.
Amnesty International– An NGO for human rights – started an online petition titled ‘Let Kashmir Speak’, demanding a lifting of “the blackout of communications in Jammu and Kashmir” while letting “the voices of the people of Kashmir be heard” and allowing “unconditional and unconstrained access to news and information from the valley”.
United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of expression, David Kaye said in a statement that “there’s something about this shutdown that is draconian in a way other shutdowns usually are not”.
The Iranian government expressed concern over the situation in Kashmir following the lockdown, urging India and Pakistan to engage in dialogue as regional partners and resolve the situation peacefully. ²⁷

So far according to the ‘The Independent’, “New Delhi’s approach to Kashmir had long been about asserting firm military domination over a hostile population. But beyond the sticks of counterinsurgency, Indian rule always rested on a number of carrots designed to win popular consent, including economic development schemes, political autonomy under local elections, and a special status within India’s federal structure. It is another matter that these provisions are largely formalistic, have been whittled down over the years, and have generated a pliant pro-India political elite who are viewed with scorn by the public.” ²⁸ Sadly even that has now been lost.

No one was allowed to witness the situation as it was transpiring, Modi did not allow Indian or International lawmakers to visit Kashmir and take stock of the situation. Eventually some phone lines were restored and some members of European Parliament with anti-Muslim leanings and rhetoric were allowed to visit. “A United States senator, Chris Van Hollen, was prevented from traveling to Kashmir and the Indian government has consistently blocked even its own lawmakers from visiting the area to assess the situation.

The Twitter account of Mehbooba Mufti, one of the Kashmiri politicians who have been detained, was scathing about the European delegation’s visit. Members of Ms. Mufti’s Peoples Democratic Party have been prevented from meeting with her during her detention.

“In its desperation to convince international community that normalcy’s restored in Kashmir,” the government of India is “engaging with what seem like pro fascist, right leaning and anti-immigrant EU MPs. Royal mess,” the post read. (Ms. Mufti’s Twitter account is being operated by her daughter while she is in detention, supporters say.) ²⁹

Addressing the question of legality of the action according to the constitution, “Article 370 could only be modified with the agreement of the “state government”. But there hasn’t been much of a state government in Jammu and Kashmir for over a year now. In June 2018, India imposed federal rule after the government of the then chief minister, Mehbooba Mufti, was reduced to a minority. This meant the federal government only had to seek the consent of the governor who imposes its rule.

The government says it is well within its rights to bring in the changes and that similar decisions have been taken by federal governments in the past. But expert opinion is sharply divided.

One constitutional expert, Subhash Kashyap, told news agency ANI that the order was “constitutionally sound” and that “no legal and constitutional fault can be found in it”. However, another constitutional expert, AG Noorani, told BBC Hindi it was “an illegal decision, akin to committing fraud that could be challenged in the Supreme Court. Opposition political parties could launch a legal challenge, but Kashmir is an emotive issue with many Indians, and most parties would be wary of opposing the move lest they be branded anti-Indian. That could leave any challenge up to individuals or activists.” ³⁰

Concluding analysis:

It can unreservedly be said that 2019 has been a year in which Modis adventures have robbed the bank of the goodwill accumulated internationally for him; Kashmir, Balakot, CAA, NRC, Ram Mandir and the heavy handedness with which these issues have been handled and categorized as ‘domestic issues.’ The official versions no longer stand. Now that the election has been won, attention will revert to the downward slide in the economy.

Modi is the second BJP leader to ever have reached the High office of Premier after Vajpayee but the two are very different in nature. Though the Hindutva character of the two remained the same as representatives of BJP, the situation in India is very different from how it was under Vajpayee who acted “like a visionary within and without India.” Vajpayee made unprecedented diplomatic breakthroughs with Pakistan, including launching the India–Pakistan train; bringing actors, writers, etc. with him on his visit to Lahore for some backdoor diplomacy. A spokesperson, upon his death tweeted a verse in Urdu that Vajpayee had recited on his 1999 visit that translates to, “I won’t allow another war.” Narendra Modi thrives on just the opposite bandwidth, with his hand poised on the trigger for war and outright hostility for Muslims and Pakistan.

As regards to the fate of Muslims in India, Modi got away with his inhumane siege of Kashmir with stone-dead silence from an apathetic world, so he miscalculated the same response for the CAA. This BJP move might do the party more damage. Unfortunately for him, there was uproar within India, and it ripped off the mask of a tolerant secular India exposing secularism as an empty claim and a superficial charade. Even Indian allied countries are having a difficult time dignifying this to a world where the more racism is growing the less it is being tolerated; and India is exposing its duplicity and abhorrence for the Muslim community. Modis India is very different from Vajpayee’s India in that the latter was a visionary peacemaker for India and the world. Modi’s narrow Hindutva ideology is guaranteed to disrupt peace, within and without.

A year that began with intrigued whispers and victorious bellows for Modi ended with loud criticism due to his intolerant, exclusionist, hostility-driven domestic moves that especially targeted minorities and Muslims. From bisecting Kashmir to enacting new citizenship laws, the world watched Modi’s relentless drive to alter the nature of things. When students and civil society rose in protest, they were branded as opposition stooges and thugs to be subdued. His Hindutva avatar became stronger and stronger much to the chagrin of Pakistan and its willingness for peace as seen by the various offers made to Modi, even after the aerial skirmish of February 2019. Modi’s aggression uses the currency of delusion where his policy action is concerned. This course of action cannot last forever and could result in either war or an uprising. The end cannot be a good one in either scenario.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–