It didn’t take long for the mask to slip. Addressing a rare question after his White House meeting with the president of the United States of America, Joe Biden, Prime Minister Narendra Modi pushed back against a reporter’s allusion to mounting concerns over India’s weakening democratic credentials — in particular through discrimination against religious minorities and a crackdown on free speech. Modi responded by insisting — thrice — that there is “absolutely no space for discrimination” in India.
Meanwhile, in an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, the former US president, Barack Obama, whom Modi has frequently described as a good friend, said he would advise Biden to mention to the Indian leader why he must ensure the safety and rights of India’s Muslims. If he didn’t do that, India risked pulling apart, Obama warned. Barely hours later, Himanta Biswa Sarma, the Bharatiya Janata Party chief minister of Assam, threatened to target the “Hussain Obamas” in his state in a blatantly bigoted attack on the former US president that highlighted the very discrimination that Modi had claimed didn’t exist.
Sarma’s comments might appear to contradict Modi’s statement in Washington. But in reality, they reflect two sides of the same truth: nine years after Modi came to power, he is widely welcomed in global capitals but the politics he represents is still as much of a pariah internationally as he once was. India is sought after as a partner, and its role as a potential bulwark against Chinese aggression in Asia and its significant economy are points of attraction to the developed West. Modi, as India’s democratically-elected prime minister, receives the respect and pageantry that the leader of the country deserves. Yet it’s a mistake to see that as acceptance of Modi’s politics. On the contrary, the prime minister still feels compelled to use soft, almost Nehruvian, language while speaking about his government’s vision abroad even as it practises policies and spouts rhetoric domestically that reveals a different focus.
Consider Modi’s address to the US Congress: “Democracy is the spirit that supports equality and dignity,” the prime minister said. Or his detailed emphasis on his government’s development programmes, from homes to health insurance for the poor, and free Covid-19 vaccines and financial inclusion schemes. There was no mention of his government scrapping Article 370, building a Ram Mandir where the Babri Masjid once stood, or other such polarising steps his government has taken. To be sure, he did refer to one Hindutva pet theme, speaking of “a thousand years of foreign rule, in one form or another,” effectively portraying Indian-born Mughal rulers as external occupiers. But for the most part, his speech sought to project his government as focused on poverty alleviation, not one dedicated to dismantling the secular credentials of the Constitution.
It was the same in his other public comments. Ahead of the yoga day celebrations he led at the United Nations headquarters in New York, Modi described the ancient practice as “unifying”. And in his response to the tricky question at the press conference with Biden, Modi repeatedly stressed India’s diversity. “We have always proved that democracy can deliver. And when I say deliver, this is regardless of caste, creed, religion, gender,” Modi said. “And when you talk of democracy, if there are no human values and… there are no human rights, then it’s not a democracy.”
There’s plenty of daylight between these words and the reality of India. But that India’s most powerful leader in four decades feels forced to speak a language that closely mirrors the ideology of his opponents shows the grudging acknowledgement of a failure. A failure to mainstream Hindutva globally. A failure to convince even supposed friends like Obama of his approach. A failure to build an internationally acceptable alternative image of India to the one Modi has tried steadfastly to undermine.
India’s allure to the world is not about Modi. And the prime minister knows it.
Charu Sudan Kasturi is a senior journalist who writes on foreign policy and international relations
