The complicated politics of India
India, in the visible effects of the massive assault on its unprepared society by the coronavirus and the political loss at the polls in the critical West Bengal state by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party, pushed its news to the forefront in what was happening in the world last week.
My earlier nomination of the new tripartite oligarchy of China, Russia and the United states as the Big Three of world politics notably left out India. This was in spite of its size in terms of population, area and global influence, as well as the advantage of its vigorously democratic political system that at least its American fans attributed to it in comparison with dictatorial Russia and sclerotic China.
So what’s the problem with an underperforming India on the world stage? Let’s start with the assumption that it is not a florid democracy.
The first is its continuing obsession militarily and politically with its neighbor Pakistan. Pakistan is predominantly Muslim; India, particularly under Mr. Modi, is Hindu. The only American parallel one can imagine is if an American South, ruled by Catholics, had emerged from our
Civil War separate and independent, ruled and riled by Protestants. South Asia, and potentially the world, has remained troubled by the division since it occurred. Americans, in the simplest of terms, don’t understand the passions engaged.
The second problem, in my view as someone who has visited India twice, most recently on a long train journey, is the gap in development between urban and rural India. The picture of life in a village, where cows and children bathed and drank from the same muddy pond, was considerably more than a fastidious urban American could regard with indifference, even one with many years of living in Africa.
These two problems, piled on top of different religions and languages in a huge country led by politicians skilled in playing on the differences, are a critical part of what makes success in leading India. These elements also serve as the constraints on India’s success in the world.
It is significant that the one Indian leader who most of the rest of the world has heard of is Mahatma Gandhi, known for his advocacy of piety, poverty and peace, not war and conquest, even though India has nuclear weapons. It remains unthinkable that India would wage a war such as that in Yemen or even that in Afghanistan for that matter.
I remember the distaste with which the commander of the Indian peacekeeping forces in Somalia regarded the demand of the Somali militias that the Indian forces leave their weapons behind for the Somalis to fight each other with. He said to me, “The Indian Army will not leave a pin behind,” and they didn’t.
One can hope that the Biden administration will build good relations with whatever regime — and its opposition — emerges on top in India, whether it be Mr. Modi’s or another. It would be a mistake to put America’s money exclusively on the Hindu nationalist BJP or Mr. Modi, tempting though it might be. The political situation in India is complicated and changeable, as in any vigorous democracy.
For any American ambassador — or president — to stay on top of bloody Indian politics would be a challenge, but one worth meeting in terms of representing American interests.
I personally would rather not have to deal with religious beliefs and loyalties in trying to make sense of and deal with the politics of any country, but one has to in places such as Nigeria, BosniaHerzegovina or India.
India’s core attachment to peace, except for Pakistan, makes it a good ally and sharp observer in international politics. If President Joe Biden can handle the India-Pakistan maze, he can learn a lot from talking with Indian and Pakistani leaders as America tries to find its way in Asian politics without stumbling into unnecessary war. We don’t feel like engaging in another Afghanistan or Vietnam.