Western Criticism and India's Independent Path: Analyzing Sanctions, Democracy, and Geopolitical Tensions

 

It is interesting how the anti-Modi narrative was pushed before of our national elections and persisted throughout the weeks-long voting process by Western media, think tanks, foundations, civil society members, and a segment of the Indian diaspora.

The toughest critics of Modi and the BJP have published essays in Foreign Affairs magazine. When it comes to overly partisan and hostile reporting about India, The Guardian has demonstrated superiority. As usual, the Financial Times has so severely damaged India's reputation that one wonders if it is a news organization or a political party. Both The Washington Post and The New York Times have persisted in their ongoing slander campaign. According to The Economist, it is still morally appropriate for it to evaluate India's government using a fictitious British imperialist framework.

The same old complaints have been made again and again: democracy is slipping away, minorities are being persecuted, the media is being restricted, public institutions are being abused to attack political rivals, and the Election Commission's independence is being lost. Phrases like "electoral autocracy" have been used to downplay the significance of India's democracy, despite the fact that the country has the greatest democratic election scale in human history. This is an attempt to downplay the importance of the process, which is obviously fair in terms of protocol, but presents the actual outcomes as level playing fields distorted by institutional control and the government's use of them against the opposition.

Additionally, there have been attempts to paint India as a sort of rising rogue state, charging it with trying to kill Indian political "dissidents" living abroad, such as Nijjar and Pannun. Their links to drug trafficking, gun running, and terrorist violence have been fully denied. India has been accused of engaging in "international repression," placing it in the same league with nations such as China, who keep an eye on the activities of their diaspora and work to stifle criticism of the government overseas. All of a sudden, media reports from a few years ago concerning the expulsion of Indian intelligence personnel from Australia have reappeared. In an attempt to draw attention to Indian agencies' dubious overseas activities, allegations of meddling in Canadian elections have been made.

According to a recent piece in The Economist, by not utilizing technology and investment to confront human rights abuses and democratic norm violations committed by the present Indian administration, the West is facilitating Modi's rise to power. The Economist has voiced the worries of Western authorities that they ought to learn from their previous mistakes of absolving China of responsibility for the Tiananmen Square massacre in order to maintain its support against the Soviet Union, and refrain from granting India the same latitude in order to maintain its support against China. These entities demonstrate the extreme anti-Modi sentiment in Western circles by arguing that the possibility of Modi repressing democracy during his third term is in some ways similar to the Tiananmen incident.

The Economist similarly notes that Western authorities are ignoring India's democratic backsliding by citing commercial interests, just as commercial interests dictated China's behavior. Western nations should coordinate their shared positions and pronouncements on India's transgressions of democratic principles, based on China's experience, to avoid punishing individual states for their criticism.

The idea that a more authoritarian India will support China's efforts to legitimize its own regime—especially in the Global South—and undermine the Western-led global order is surprising and demonstrates the futility of geopolitical thinking in Western circles. Even in Islamic nations, China's reputation is better in the Global South than it is in the democratic West, notwithstanding its egregious treatment of the Uyghur people.

Another example of distorted geopolitical thinking comes from The Economist, which held India responsible for Bangladesh's and Myanmar's lack of progress toward democracy. Thankfully, India has not been held accountable for failing to advance democracy in Pakistan! The Economist draws a conclusion that the West should continue to express its concerns about Modi's government and the Indian people, pointing out the well-planned opposition to Modi and the BJP since their election and the momentum that has been built up with the prospect of a third term for Modi.

We should take some positive lessons out from all of this. First off, it's important to take seriously the Western propaganda that claims India to be the largest democracy in the world and that it shares ideals with the West. A rising India raises concerns for both the progressive and conservative establishments in the West about potential future power shifts away from the West. The West will not support an independent-minded India with robust leadership and ancient roots.

Second, India has endured decades of Western sanctions. Sanctions are one more instrument that the West is employing in its foreign strategy. Although India has not yet been subject to penalties due to its ties with Russia, the country has recently received warnings about the repercussions of breaking American sanctions against Iran. In order to curtail the unwanted features of India's autonomous perspective in global affairs, the Economist article recommends utilizing investment and technology as punitive mechanisms to put pressure on India.

Third, criticism of the status of democracy, growing authoritarianism under Modi, and persecution of minorities is closely coordinated by opposition groups in India and Western circles. Part of this tactic is evoking the specter of caste and class warfare within the nation. The intention is to maintain India's division and stop the BJP's increasing strength among Hindus.

Fourth, it is in the larger national interest of India to continue having an independent foreign policy. West-oriented circles in India are pushing the notion that India should take sides, that it is not a sustainable policy to be friends with everyone, that it is better to distance itself from a declining Russia and choose the West as a preferred partner—especially in light of the expanding strategic relationship between China and Russia. India should keep a balance in its foreign policy, draw closer to the West when necessary for the good of the country, but it shouldn't sever ties with long-standing allies.

Fifth, why do they feel obliged to criticize us for what they see as our society's and our government's shortcomings when India does not meddle in the domestic affairs of Western nations, does not lecture them about the shortcomings of their democracies, does not preach to them about racial and minority discrimination and the rise of fascism in their societies, etc. When their own hands are dirty, what duty do they have to do this? The piece in The Economist illustrates the kind of white supremacist ideology that exists in the West, and India should take note of it.