Taming Pakistan: Modi Effect

[Dayuhan]

Getting back to Modi...

Much of the suspicion of Modi in the West runs back to the 2002 Gujarat violence, and the widespread perception that Modi either tolerated or was directly complicit in the violence against Muslims.

Would you say that perception is inaccurate, that it is accurate but shouldn't be an issue, or something else?

If tension between India and Pakistan ratchets up and spills over into internal sectarian violence, would a Modi administration defend the rights of all citizens, or would it take sides?

[MoorthyM]

Getting back to Modi...

Much of the suspicion of Modi in the West runs back to the 2002 Gujarat violence, and the widespread perception that Modi either tolerated or was directly complicit in the violence against Muslims.

Would you say that perception is inaccurate, that it is accurate but shouldn't be an issue, or something else?

If tension between India and Pakistan ratchets up and spills over into internal sectarian violence, would a Modi administration defend the rights of all citizens, or would it take sides?

Please permit me to give you a backdrop:

From every Muslim majority region of South Asia most non-Muslims have been forcibly converted, killed or driven away to India. Many non-Muslim Indians are aware of this data and are apprehensive for the following reason: Indian Muslims, who were 10% of the population in 1947, now constitute around 25% of the Indian children under the age of five and they are being rapidly radicalized.

In the long-term, non-Muslim Indians are likely facing extermination in the hands of Islamist forces.

Given this, those who keep on harping Mr. Modi's handling of the 2002 riots in his state, are like those who kept highlighting the acts of some Jews who retaliated against the Nazis, and bypass looking at the methodical Nazi extermination of the Jews.

A competent leader of India must work to liberate India's Muslims from the regressive forces within the community, not to appease or placate them as the previous governments have done.

Do you really think the Indians should worry about others think or say?

[Dayuhan]

Given this, those who keep on harping Mr. Modi's handling of the 2002 riots in his state, are like those who kept highlighting the acts of some Jews who retaliated against the Nazis, and bypass looking at the methodical Nazi extermination of the Jews.

That analogy will be seen by many as strained beyond the breaking point, and would be a tough sell in Western policy circles.

A competent leader of India must work to liberate India's Muslims from the regressive forces within the community, not to appease or placate them as the previous governments have done.

The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians seems a peculiar recipe for liberation, and a less than effective way of fighting radicalism, but that is of course an outsider's view.

Do you really think the Indians should worry about others think or say?

That's up to them. If you want to know why western governments see Modi as a risk and a threat rather than an opportunity, or why they will be less than enthusiastic about joining or supporting a crusade against Pakistan, you have to look at the perceived connection to sectarian violence as a significant factor in shaping that attitude. Whether or not anyone wants to "worry about" it is their own concern. Again, the idea that indiscriminate killing of Muslim civilians is a legitimate or effective response to a perceived threat may pass with Modi and it may pass with you, but it's going to be a tough sell in the international public opinion arena. If governments believe that Modi may provoke outright war with Pakistan or that he may deflect anger at Pakistan onto Muslim civilians, they are going to keep his government at arm's length or beyond. Again, whether or not that's something to worry about depends on who's doing the worrying. If India chooses to walk that path, that's their choice. If others choose not to walk that path with them, that's their choice, and it's only to be expected.

Personally, as I said above, I'd suggest waiting and seeing what he actually does before rushing to judgment, but given the past I'd expect that waiting period to be marked by a fair degree of distance.

Also as above, I suspect that Modi's approach to Pakistan and Islam will be less significant in the long run than his response to the challenges of building India's infrastructure, reining in corruption and bureaucratic interference with business, and spreading the benefits of growth outside the urban centers and the urban elite. We'll see what happens.

[MoorthyM]

The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians seems a peculiar recipe for liberation, and a less than effective way of fighting radicalism, but that is of course an outsider's view.

Also as above, I suspect that Modi's approach to Pakistan and Islam will be less significant in the long run than his response to the challenges of building India's infrastructure, reining in corruption and bureaucratic interference with business, and spreading the benefits of growth outside the urban centers and the urban elite. We'll see what happens.

You are putting words in my mouth. I am not even remotely suggesting anything along these lines. No one in their right mind would slaughter civilians when they, too, are victims of radicals.

I can claim to have certain level of bonafides, with a book and a forthcoming academic scholarship in that the radicalization and socioeconomic stagnation of the Muslim communities in many parts of the world (including South Asia) are mostly self-induced. In fact, I believe that we can identify specific processes and entities behind it. Only in this context I used the word liberation. The point is the state has the right to act to secure the rights of Muslim minorities (as with anyone) on the basis of human rights and religious freedom.

That said, I agree with you that Mr. Modi's initial few years of focus is likely to be, and perhaps should be, development. But that alone, obviously, will not make India's growing Muslim radicalism problem go away all by itself.

[Dayuhan]

No one in their right mind would slaughter civilians when they, too, are victims of radicals.

Yes, and that is the problem: the slaughter occurred, and the response of the state government, under Mr Modi's control, was perceived as being either grossly inadequate or actively complicit. That makes people wonder if Modu is, in your words, in his right mind, and it makes governments reluctant to get to close to him.

Sectarian violence can be an opportunity to challenge a radical narrative or reinforce it, depending on how government responds. If government moves in to promptly and effectively restore order, protect the innocent, and punish the guilty regardless of affiliation, the radical narrative is weakened. If government is perceived to be taking sides, the radical narrative is enhanced and given credibility.

This is to a large extent what happened in Mindanao in the early 70s: violence initially broke out between rival militias from the indigenous Muslim and settler Christian populations, with plenty of blame on both sides. Government had a brief opportunity to stay neutral. They failed to take it: instead they took the side of the settler population, kicking of a war that's been running sporadically ever since. It was a bad move.

I can claim to have certain level of bonafides, with a book and a forthcoming academic scholarship in that the radicalization and socioeconomic stagnation of the Muslim communities in many parts of the world (including South Asia) are mostly self-induced. In fact, I believe that we can identify specific processes and entities behind it. Only in this context I used the word liberation. The point is the state has the right to act to secure the rights of Muslim minorities (as with anyone) on the basis of human rights and religious freedom.

That said, I agree with you that Mr. Modi's initial few years of focus is likely to be, and perhaps should be, development. But that alone, obviously, will not make India's growing Muslim radicalism problem go away all by itself.

No, it won't but economic opportunity, especially for the critical young male demographic bracket, is always a useful element of any challenge to radicalism. So is a very clear effort to provide equal services and equal access to justice for minorities that consider themselves aggrieved.

What specific policies to you believe Modi will adopt to challenge domestic Islamic radicalism, and what policies would you suggest that he adopt? I'm also curious to see how he'll approach the Naxalite/Maoist insurgencies, but that of course is another topic!

[MoorthyM]

No, it won't but economic opportunity, especially for the critical young male demographic bracket, is always a useful element of any challenge to radicalism. So is a very clear effort to provide equal services and equal access to justice for minorities that consider themselves aggrieved.

What specific policies to you believe Modi will adopt to challenge domestic Islamic radicalism, and what policies would you suggest that he adopt? I'm also curious to see how he'll approach the Naxalite/Maoist insurgencies, but that of course is another topic!

I am afraid that your premise is flawed. Poll after poll (in Pakistan, the UK and elsewhere) have shown that in regions where radicalism is prevalent, educated, resourced and radicalized Muslims form the most potent threat and that the non-radicalized Muslims can do little about them.

Here's a terrorism 101 lesson: The sense of grievance against govt./majority community is cultivated by radicals to shift the blame away from themselves for the Muslim communities' shortcomings.

Without de-radicalizing Indian Muslims, increasing economic opportunities for them would be suicidal for India (the U.S. State Department folks have so far failed to grasp that).

Economic growth, to a large extent, I believe will work to alleviate the Naxal/Maoist insurgencies. My forthcoming scholarship, I believe will help us identify how to neuter Islamic radicalism. Until then, the answer -- from Obama to Putin and from Modi to Jinping -- is the same: who knows what the right policies are!

[Dayuhan]

The sense of grievance against govt./majority community is cultivated by radicals to shift the blame away from themselves for the Muslim communities' shortcomings.

Of course, but it's difficult to cultivate something that didn't exist in the first place. Government needs to starve the cultivators by not fueling or reinforcing the sense of grievance, and by undercutting that sense of grievance where possible. At the very least, minority populations have to know that violence against them will not be tolerated.

Without de-radicalizing Indian Muslims, increasing economic opportunities for them would be suicidal for India (the U.S. State Department folks have so far failed to grasp that).

The point is to compete for those who have not yet been radicalized. Since nobody has yet come up with an effective way of de-radicalizing those already radicalized, it makes some sense to try to prevent radicalization in the first place. It is not a solution in itself (neither is anything else), it's a component of a solution.

My forthcoming scholarship, I believe will help us identify how to neuter Islamic radicalism. Until then, the answer -- from Obama to Putin and from Modi to Jinping -- is the same: who knows what the right policies are!

The "right policies" will inevitably vary according to where, when, and by whom the policies are applied, but I'll certainly be curious to see what you come up with.

When we deal with radicalism (of any description) we often encounter two opposite narratives. One, typically espoused by radicals and their supporters, is that the fault lies entirely with vicious and incompetent governments who have oppressed their people into a radicalized corner. The other, typically espoused by governments and their supporters, is that government is blameless and the whole problem is caused by evil agitators who have corrupted the people. Both, like most polar opinions, are a load of bollocks: there are always elements of both in play. For a government faced by radicalism, objectively assessing its own behavior and getting its own house in order may not be the only part of a de-radicalization strategy, but it's a very important part, especially since the government gets to deal with something it can actually control.

[JMA]

Do you really think the Indians should worry about others think or say?

Of course not... They should act in their own best interests regardless (much like Americans do).

Advice from the US is best ignored - probably doing the exact opposite would be the best course of action.

If India has a problem it is that it lacks the necessary aggression to really establish itself as a real Power in the region.

[MoorthyM]

If India has a problem it is that it lacks the necessary aggression to really establish itself as a real Power in the region.

You are so correct about the past. I wrote an article about 10 years ago titled "Slaves, Servants and Rulers." The Indian society now has a ruling class that can and will assert itself. Mr. Modi, I believe, represents them.