|
Modi’s Kashmir move
proves his fiercest critics right
(Pavel
Golovkin/AP)
When Indian Prime
Minister Narendra Modi first came to power in 2014, many worried about the
effect a Hindu nationalist leading the world’s largest democracy could
have. The Economist pointedly dubbed him “a man of some of the
people,” while a New York Times op-ed
warned he could not lead India if he “inspires fear and antipathy among
many of its people.”
Modi had risen through
the ranks of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a controversial Hindu
nationalist paramilitary volunteer organization, as he went on to become
the leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). During the George W. Bush
administration, he was denied a U.S. visa on grounds pertaining to
religious freedom over allegations that he tacitly supported Hindu
extremists during anti-Muslim riots in 2002 in his home state of Gujarat.
Modi played down these
worries after he won in 2014, focusing on economic redevelopment rather
than sectarian division. “India’s social differences will come together and
make a flag, just like different threads come together to weave a cloth,”
he said after winning his first term. He soon become known better for his awkward handshakes than
his Hindu nationalism.
This week, however,
many of Modi’s critics seemed to get some vindication. Months after his
unprecedented reelection, Modi’s government announced that it would strip
statehood from the Indian-administered portion of Kashmir, the country’s
only Muslim-majority state known officially as Jammu and Kashmir. The move
prompted an immediate backlash from Pakistan, which has long viewed itself
as the protector of the region’s Muslims.
The stakes are
incredibly high: Pakistan and India have fought several wars over Kashmir,
and the region remains restive at the best of times. On Tuesday, Pakistani
Prime Minister Imran Khan suggested war was still a possibility. “They may
strike us again, and we will strike back,” Khan said. “Who will win
that war? No one will win it, and it will have grievous consequences for
the entire world.”
Paramilitary
soldiers stand guard during curfew Aug. 7 in Indian-controlled Kashmir.
(Farooq Khan/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)
An estimated 12 million
people live in Indian-controlled Kashmir. Their
reaction to the news is hard to gauge, as the Indian government has shut
off the majority of communication, including Internet, cellphone and
landline networks. Although Modi’s government justified the move by
suggesting it wanted to focus on development in a state that has long
lagged behind the rest of India, it’s clear officials are worried about
unrest.
Thousands of additional
troops have been deployed to the region, bolstering an already large
military presence. There have been protests against Indian rule in Kashmir
since 1989, and there are already reports of violence. Agence France-Presse reported
Wednesday that a protester died and more than 100 people were arrested for
being out after curfew in Srinagar, Kashmir’s main city.
Things could get worse,
especially as the practical effects of Modi’s reforms — specifically, the
scrapping of Article 35-A — go into effect, allowing nonresidents to move
to Kashmir and buy land. Such a move would allow outsiders to change the
demographics of India’s only Muslim-majority state, an idea that has been
compared to Israeli settlers in the West Bank or the Han Chinese
moving to Xinjiang.
“This is going to be an
extremely unpopular decision in Kashmir, not just among those whose
sympathies lie toward a more independent Kashmir but also among those who
see themselves as fully part of the Indian union but for whom the special
status of Kashmir is an important political principle,” Irfan Nooruddin, a
professor of Indian politics at Georgetown University, told Foreign Policy this
week.
Mehbooba Mufti, former
chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir who worked in coalition with the BJP,
wrote on Twitter that the move shows that the Indian government had “chosen
territory” over the interests of its people.
Why did Modi make this
risky move? It’s true that in some ways, he’s just doing what he said he
would. The BJP ran on a platform of revoking Kashmir’s special status,
portraying it as an administrative move rather than a change to the
country’s basic fabric. Modi’s landslide win in May suggests that the idea
had the backing of many Indians. Indeed, it wasn’t just BJP supporters who
backed the move.
The timing of the
decision may have been influenced by other factors, too. President Trump’s
curious claim that Modi had asked him to “mediate” on Kashmir, announced
during a White House visit by Khan last month, provoked a furious response in India.
The United States on Wednesday issued its
own denial that it had been forewarned of Modi’s plans.
But perhaps one of the
simplest reasons for Modi’s shift on Kashmir may be the most cynical: It’s
a political distraction. Modi’s bold plans for economic redevelopment
across India have largely failed to come to fruition. Major policy moves
such as abruptly invalidating the two most popular bank notes
in circulation in 2016 were carried out in a chaotic, disruptive way with
little obvious economic benefit.
These economic concerns
haven’t gone away. Aarefa Johari of the online publication Scroll.in found that
among stock traders on Mumbai’s Dalal Street, although many supported
Modi’s decision on Kashmir, they still worried about the economy. “But why
should we care what they have done in Kashmir? How does it affect us?” one said. “What matters
is that we are facing a recession, and that this government is trying to
kill the middle-class.”
Modi once cloaked his
Hindu nationalist views with ideas of economic reform and revitalization.
But as the latter has stalled, he’s fallen back on an easier option. It’s a
short-term gamble for political popularity, but the effects will last a
while.
|
