#populisminindia

[srd772]

Event Analysis: Hate Crimes in India

SUMMARY

Hindu nationalism in India is not a new phenomenon. From Cherian George’s book, “Hate Spin: The Manufacture of Religious Offense and its Threat to Democracy,”, it began its comeback with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), formed in 1980. Beginning in 2014 and still to this day, Narendra Modi sits as the prime minister of India and provides a face for the Hindu-nationalist discourse. Like any nationalist organization, there are the oppressor and the oppressed, who, in this case, consist mainly of Muslim people in India. On April 18, 2022, Hindu devotees gathered to march, celebrating the Hindu festival Hanuman Jayanti. Now, there was a previous agreement between the Hindu and Muslim residents in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri district to avoid the local mosque, but that was ignored. 

“A Hindu mob smashed beer bottles inside the mosque, put up saffron flags there, and chanted Jai Shri Ram [Hail Lord Ram],” said Tabreez Khan, 39, a witness. “A caretaker of the mosque started resisting them, leading to a brawl. It was only after they started to desecrate the mosque that Muslims got angry and clashes started and stones were thrown.” 

Even though the perpetrators were part of the Hindu-nationalist mob, the majority of those arrested were Muslim. Many bystanders and Muslim people involved note that it was not a religious rally, but an attack on the Muslim people. It was a hate crime.

SIGNIFICANCE 

“Fueled by Hindu nationalism, encouraged by authorities and carried out with impunity, oppression of Muslims has become so pervasive in India that experts said it is undermining the country’s standing as the world’s largest democracy and raising doubts about its future as a secular state.” Now, looking back in history, populists leaders have been associated “with dangerous manipulation by the leader and alarming irrationality on the part of the led” (Canovan, 1999, p. 6). The situation in India mirrors other nationalist regimes in places like the United States where Donald Trump and white nationalists are spreading hate and violence against oppressed groups in the country. 

It is important to note the significance of having higher power, one who rules the government and the majority of the media, continuously boosting the narrative. In a nutshell, the current state of Hindu nationalism in India, as it has developed over the past years, has led to an upsurge of the patriotic and democratic ideas that formed the cultural and ideological base for India’s original independence movement to separate from the British raj. 

LINK TO POPULISM AND THE MEDIA

Luca Manucci speaks to the relationship between populism and the media, which “considers the effects of populist messages diffused by the media as a threat to the quality of democracy” (Manucci, 2017, p. 467). In the case of India, where Modi has effectively made use of media and social media outlets to spread his discourse, there has been an increasing threat of losing secularism in the country. As a country that has been democratic since its independence in 1947, India seems to currently be headed away from its founding ideals. Like Manucci said, the media helps to spread the Hindu-nationalist ideas, as well as refrains from broadcasting any anti-nationalist discourse, as Modi and the BJP overlook the media censorship. In addition, this makes it increasingly more dangerous for journalists coming to India to research topics like nationalism, democracy, or secularism. Overall, India has seen diminishing freedom of religion and freedom of speech through increasing hate towards minority groups and the spread of journalism and news exposing that very hate.

[srd772]

Populist Profile Part 2: Narendra Modi

This is the second of a two-part profile series highlighting India’s two contrasting populist leaders. As mentioned, The two leaders have differed significantly in their political views as one resides in left-wing populism and the other in far-right-wing populism. With this divide in political views, they choose to target different groups as well as pursue different policies, ultimately having differing impacts on India’s overall democracy. 

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Narendra Modi, born September 17, 1950, is an Indian politician who rose up the ranks to become the senior leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). In 2014, Modi led the BJP to victory in the Lok Sabha, which is the lower chamber of the Indian parliament. His political career also includes being chief minister, or head of government, of the Gujarat state in western India from 2001 until 2014. Modi is college-educated, having received a master's degree in political science from Gujarat University. In the early 1970s, Narendra Modi joined the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a right-wing, Hindu nationalist, paramilitary volunteer organization. His growing presence within the RSS was very helpful for his later years in the field of politics. In 1987, Modi joined the Bharatiya Janata Party and played a major role in strengthening the party’s presence in the Indian states. His first electoral victory came in 2002 when he won a seat in the Gujarat state assembly, but his career in politics became controversial as “he was accused of condoning the violence or, at least, of doing little to stop the killing of more than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, that ensued after dozens of Hindu passengers died when their train was set on fire in the city of Godhra” (D’Souza, Britannica). Despite the accusations, Modi proved to be an able administrator and received credit for the state’s growing economy, which led to his victory in 2014, becoming the next prime minister of India.   

RELATIONSHIP TO POPULISM 

The state of populism in India changed drastically as the current prime minister and leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Narendra Modi, came into power in 2014. With his victory came the spread of Hindu nationalism across India. Modi’s campaign portrayed populist, majoritarian views as he pushed an “us vs “them” narrative, but differed from Indira Gandhi in the sense that instead of “the poor vs the corrupt elite” it was “Hindus vs Muslims and other minority groups”. He was able to gain traction nation-wide as he stormed into power with large amounts of anger towards corruption and weak growth and felt strongly about bringing more development to India. “In the case of some right-wing populists, these demands are laced with bigotry or challenge democratic norms. In other cases, they are clouded with misinformation” (Judis, 2016, pg. 3). Modi’s discourse appealed to all people, but, as Judis noted, had the underlying connotation that was pro-Hindu. Additionally, he portrayed extensive amounts of emotion in his narrative that boosted the favor and attention of the people. “The explosions of passions that accompanies populism is not the pathological outside of democratic politics but its repressed symptoms” (Jutel, 2018, pg. 251). When Narendra Modi first took power, he had some opposition from Parliament, but once members of the BJP gained enough seats in Parliament, the opposition was silenced. Due to Modi and the BJP having the majority, and essentially final, say, it has become an increasing threat to liberal democracy. Modi’s rise to power has proven to have significantly affected civil rights and civil liberties, including the freedom and religion of minority groups in India.

RELATIONSHIP TO MEDIA

India has nearly 24 official languages, so news platforms must operate in many languages. Current mass media in India consists of television, radio, newspaper, magazines, and the internet. The most popular media source is the Times of India (TOI), which is a privately owned daily newspaper that is a known and trusted outlet for most Indian people. Overall, the BJP and Narendra Modi have greater control of the media. In a study done by Freedom House (a US-based NGO), they deemed India “partly free” from government-controlled media, meaning there is censorship from the government, but since there are privately owned media companies, there is room for freedom of speech. That being said, in 2020, India was named one of the world’s most dangerous countries to do journalism work. Modi has worked to purge all news surrounding “anti-nationalist” thoughts from the public stage to further push his Hindu-nationalist discourse. Additionally, he uses social media as an outlet, much like Donald Trump, to feed information to his followers. He uses Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook to update with regular photos, videos, live streams of his events, and quick “tweet updates” multiple times a day. 

[srd772]

BJP Looks to Maintain Power During the 2022 State Elections, Especially in Uttar Pradesh

February 10th marked the first day of the 2022 elections for each of the five states in India. Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) currently holds the power in four of the five states, something he looks to keep as several opposing parties seek to regain power. The elections as a whole are widely expected to be a vote regarding the handling of the BJP government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of healthcare infrastructure collapsing, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, as well as two lockdowns resulting in unemployment for millions of people. In addition to the pandemic, there has been talk of identity politics replacing governance issues, specifically the “explosion of hate speech against Muslims”, resulting in a lack of responsiveness from the police. As has been previously established, Narendra Modi and the BJP have benefitted from the polarization of “Hindus vs. Muslims”, as Hindu people make up 80% of India’s population. An important aspect of this election is the BJP’s ability to keep control of Uttar Pradesh, India’s largest state with more than 150 million voters. Modi’s Hindu nationalist ideas have been the most popular throughout this state especially. In an interview from The World, Nitu Malik, a former teacher, and BJP supporter is quoted saying, “that by steering the country towards Hinduism, the BJP is forging a central identity for Indians”. State election voting ends on March 10th, so there is still time for Modi and the BJP to continue campaigning, hoping for continued government control.  

All eyes are on Uttar Pradesh, currently controlled by Narendra Modi and the BJP government, as voters head to the polls. The BJP’s Yogi Adityanath, Uttar Pradesh’s Chief Minister and Hindu monk-turned-politician is up for re-election, looking to solidify a continued government seat for Modi. In an NPR interview, Vijay Bahadur Pathak, BJP state vice president stated that “ the BJP has built houses and toilets for the poor without differentiating between their caste and religion. No one can claim the benefits of government schemes have reached only Hindus and not Muslims”. For a while, the BJP has been on a quest to begin funding and construction on big-ticket projects to improve the economy, create jobs, refurbish current buildings, and build infrastructure. In Ayodhya, India, a three-story temple, which has been demanded by Hindus for over 100 years, is finally under construction by the BJP government with the hopes of pleasing the general will of the people. Modi is pressing his government to make grand promises to please all people: farmers and city folk alike. Though, the party’s core ideals of the Hindu nationalist agenda can not be missed. “Many Hindus have now been persuaded to believe that India’s biggest problem is its Muslims”. At this point, it seems like the country’s Muslim population has no fight left. They are unmatched by the great power of Modi’s populist government, and Modi would like to keep it that way.  

Scattered all over India, but most specifically in Uttar Pradesh, are poor communities in search of help and guidance towards a better life. With the elections being held in the shadow of the pandemic, people all over India are in even greater need than ever. Narendra Modi needs the voting to go in his favor so he has continued power in states around India. Without having those in support of Hindu nationalism in government positions, the ability to further push his agenda is essentially hopeless. In Populism: A Very Short Introduction, Mudde and Kaltwasser reference how “populism can be merged completely with nationalism, when the distinction between the people and the elite is both moral and ethnic” (Mudde and Kaltwasser, 2017, pg. 14). The book also references populism as appealing to the “general will” of the people. Additionally, John B. Judis’ “Us v Them: the birth of populism” references Donald Trump’s ability to connect with the “silent majority”. The connection can be made to Modi connecting with India’s poor “silent majority”, speaking for those with no voice. Modi and the BJP use both their Hindu nationalism as well as appealing to the needs of the poor communities around the country to gain support, further pushing their governmental power, with the underlying help to spread xenophobia towards the Muslim population in India.

Photo Credit: The World. “The streets of Meerut in Uttar Pradesh are full of decorations promoting the BJP.”

[srd772]

Populist Profile Part 1: Indira Gandhi

This is the first of a two-part profile series highlighting India’s two contrasting populist leaders. The two leaders have differed significantly in their political views as one resides in left-wing populism and the other in far-right-wing populism. With this divide in political views, they choose to target different groups as well as pursue different policies, ultimately having differing impacts on India’s overall democracy. 

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Indira Gandhi, born November 19, 1917, was an Indian politician who served as the first female prime minister of India. She served a total of four terms: three consecutive terms from 1966 to 1977, then her fourth term from 1980 until her assassination in 1984. As it is known that India gained independence from the British raj in 1947, it is important to note that Indira Gandhi’s grandfather, Motilal Nehru, “was one of the pioneers of the independence movement and was a close associate of Mohandas (“Mahatma”) Gandhi”. Indira Gandhi joined the India National Congress (INC) Party in 1938, as she had been in and around politics her whole life, and her father brought the India National Congress to power in 1947. As a party, the India National Congress promoted liberalism, secularism, and social-democratic principles. After the sudden death of Nehru’s successor, Lal Bahadur Shastri, in 1966, Indira Gandhi was named to lead the India National Congress as prime minister under the circumstance that she was a compromise between the INC’s left and right-wing viewpoints. 

RELATIONSHIP TO POPULISM 

As previously mentioned, Indira Gandhi was India’s first and only female prime minister who was in power from 1966 until 1977, and then again from 1980 to 1984. As prime minister, she is known for combining socialism with populism as she held a more left-wing populist view. She made a point to highlight the poor and made a strong argument that they must be protected at all costs against the corrupt elite. This view was highlighted by Mudde and Kaltwasser as they noted that “all forms of populism include some kind of appeal to “the people” and a denunciation of “the elite” (Mudde and Kaltwasser, 2017, pg. 5). Her known slogan read: “garibi hatao”, which is translated to “remove poverty”. Indira Gandhi projected herself as a strong leader and the sole representative of the Indian people coining the phrase “Indira is India, India is Indira”. She spent her early time as prime minister gathering public support as she pushed agricultural movements to aid in India’s self-sufficiency in grain production, eventually creating the Green Revolution. As her power continued, she was voted out of office in 1977 as she showed increasing favor towards authoritarian policies, “including a 21-month state of emergency in which Indians’ constitutional rights were restricted”. When this emergency was declared, the country was facing extreme levels of corruption within the government, inflation and unemployment skyrocketed, and economic chaos began. With the addition of other radical economic policies, her leadership ultimately led to financial ruin and significant damage done to the Indian Constitution (Dutta, 2018). Per John B. Judis’s Us v Them: the birth of populism, “despite usually being short-lived, [populist leaders] have, nevertheless, had an outsized impact” (Judis, 2019, pg. 4). 

RELATIONSHIP TO MEDIA

Indira Gandhi was known to have “transformed herself into the most powerful public orator and charismatic leader by the time of the 1971 elections” (Dutta, 2018). Media is the vehicle that carries information to the people and the government, which, around the time Indira Gandhi's favoritism as prime minister was slowly fleeting, was facing mass criticism. Back then, television and radio were under full government control as there were no private television companies. Print media’s power supplies were also under government control so disruption, delay, or cancellation of print was common. The government was unable to manage state affairs during the emergency, mentioned above, so they used the media as the scapegoat. All in all, despite being a good public communicator, Indira Gandhi ultimately had a negative relationship with the media as she failed to fulfill her promises to the people.  

[srd772]

Leila: A Film Review

SUMMARY

Leila is a six-episode Netflix original series created by Indo-Canadian director and executive producer, Deepa Mehta. This dystopian television series takes us to the year 2047, 100 years after India’s independence, to the fictional nation of Aryavarta. As a totalitarian regime led by Dr. Joshi, Leila portrays the suppression of women who marry Muslim men and conceive “mixed-blood” children, referring to the mix of Hindu and Muslim religions. Shalini is a Hindu woman who married Riz, a Muslim man, and together they conceived Leila. The opening scene of the television series shows men from Aryavarta coming in to take Shalini and Leila away and to kill Riz. The remainder of the series takes the viewer through the life of Shalini as she navigates a new world within Aryavarta where she is sent to be “purified”. As a rebellious woman, she refuses to submit to the regime and does whatever it takes to complete the only goal in her mind, to find her daughter. 

Director and executive producer, Deepa Mehta, grew up in New Delhi, India, and brings much experience in the world of directing. She produced the Elements Trilogy of films which included Fire (1996), Earth (1998), and Oscar-nominated Water (2005), as well as other noted films prior to producing Leila. The truth of the circumstances that embody the film Water was “fed through rigorous channels of state censorship, but emerged unscathed, receiving official approval from the [Bharatiya Janata Party] at the Centre” (Mason, 2007). Mehta included many of the harsh realities of climate change and water shortages in Leila.  

CREATIVE ELEMENTS

I was impressed with the blend of futuristic technology and real-world issues of the ugly, uncomfortable future India is facing. The television show portrays technological devices like hologram diagrams, transparent iPads and computers, and holographic areas used to create a dome-like setting in one of the scenes. Deepa Mehta and her other creative directors were able to creatively weave in central themes such as “climate change and a deeply hierarchical society organised according to religion, caste and wealth” (Verma, 2019). Throughout the show viewers see the obvious divide between the classes in terms of wealth, showing poverty but also showing the wealthy. “Nobody could predict just how timely some of the grim realities Leila portrays would be” (Verma, 2019). 

PERSONAL TAKEAWAYS

When I first began watching Leila, I immediately recognized the similarities between the show and another I had watched last year, The Handmaid’s Tale. A populist leadership “is an appeal to the united people, the nation or country, as against parties and factions that divide it” (Canovan, 1999). Both shows portray a “draconian, patriarchal state suppressing women and restricting their reproductive rights” (Verma, 2019). In Leila, the Hindu-nationalist regime was suppressing anyone who was Muslim or associated with a Muslim person, and, on the contrary, The Handmaid’s Tale a white-supremacist, totalitarian regime suppressing any rights, reproductive or otherwise, women had. In regards to Leila, the Aryavarta regime positioned themselves to be helping the people through the water crisis as they sectioned off who got water and when portraying equal distribution. “Claiming to rebuild the nation, Hindu nationalists present themselves as an institutional and ideological alternative” (Varshney, 227-228). Overall, I think the directors did a great job creating a fictional narrative that both showed a futuristic environment but also highlighted very important themes associated with climate change as well as the dangers of a totalitarian regime when taken too far.

[srd772]

This infographic provides information regarding India’s recent 2022 state election that concluded today, March 10th. These elections were a must-win for the Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by populist leader Narendra Modi. Modi and the BJP were able to secure four of the five states in India, Uttar Pradesh being the biggest state and the biggest win for the party.