View Point: Off to a bad start

When India’s new far-right Hindu nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi invited his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif to his inauguration last May and showed much warmth towards the guest, a hope arose that he could become a good partner for peace with Pakistan. He hasn’t taken long to dash that hope.

Several things had inspired optimism. First, that demands of his new office might have suppressed the extremist streak in him. Second was his stated interest in a “developed and all-inclusive India that engages with the international community.” Third, he was the first leader in a long time to have won a comfortable majority. Fourth, he belonged to the religious far-right. The last two qualifications bestowed on him the ability to take bold steps towards normalisation with this country. A tiny sliver of hope emerged during Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s visit when the two sides announced an agreement to have their foreign secretaries “stay in touch to discuss the way forward.”

The problem with Modi, like most religious extremists, is that he cannot deal with the present without thinking about the real or perceived wrongs of the past. That explains his role in the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom as chief minister of Gujarat. In the recent years as well he has never let an opportunity go by to whip up anti-Muslim frenzy. Last year, the BJP under his stewardship incited bloody communal riots in Muzaffarnagar. During his campaign for premiership he offered encouragement to the Bodo militants in Assam who had killed at least 31 Muslims, saying if he won Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh should be ready to “pack their bags”. Such visceral hatred originates not from something the Muslims of India do, but what their ancestors might have done. That though is not to say that people of his ilk in this country are any different; only that religious extremists everywhere are alike – always unforgiving and uncompromising on their narrow world view.

Consistent with his brand of politics, Modi is in no mood to resolve issues of dispute with Pakistan, in particular the most emotive question of Kashmir. In the early days of his rule the two sides had some high-level exchange visits agreeing, aside from trade expansion, to restructure and resume peace dialogue. A foreign secretaries meeting was scheduled for August 25. He seemed to be willing to go on the path the previous BJP PM Atal Behari Vajpayee took to make peace with Pakistan even though he had made his intentions known when, holding good on his electoral campaign promise, he initiated a move to remove Article 370 of the Indian constitution that assigns special status to Jammu and Kashmir. His first day in office began with a Union minister inviting debate on that constitutional provision. A fierce reaction, including that of the pro-India parties in the J&K, thwarted the move, even if for the time being. It could be shrugged off merely as an attempt to placate his ideological support base.

But Modi was serious, and did not waste much time to come out in his true colours. During his first 100 days in office, he has made two trips to Kashmir. Addressing Indian troops on his second visit earlier this month he took a cheap shot at Pakistan, saying the country “has lost the strength to fight a conventional war, but continues to engage in the proxy war of terrorism.” Soon afterwards, New Delhi cancelled the foreign secretaries meeting because Pakistan’s High Commissioner Abdul Basit had held meetings with APHC leaders. There is nothing new about Pakistani diplomats’ holding discussions with the Kashmiri leaders. Prime Minister Sharif’s advisor on foreign affairs, Sartaj Aziz, did that just last year. Until Modi’s ascension to power, New Delhi has had no qualms about Hurriyat leaders conversing with the High Commissioner of Pakistan or calling on top government leaders. In fact, tripartite talks formed part of the formal peace process. The reason used for cancellation says all about the Indian Prime Minister’s intentions.

What Modi has been trying to say is that Kashmir is non-negotiable. And that he is determined to get rid of Article 370 to make the state an ‘integral part’ of India by removing that legal hitch standing in the way. In order to get its wish New Delhi would first have to get approval from the J&K assembly. The idea is anathema to even the pro-India Kashmiri parties like Chief Minister Omar Abdulla’s National Conference and Mehbooba Mufti’s Peoples Democratic Party. When the Modi government first mooted the proposal Abdullah threw shafts of sarcasm at it in a social media tweet: “mark my words & save this tweet-long after Modi government is a distant memory either J&K won’t be part of India or Article 370 will still exist… Article 370 is the only constitutional link between J&K and rest of India.”

Modi remains unfazed. He has pinned his hope on the state assembly election to be held later this year, announcing a three-point development plan to bring about betterment in power supply, environment and tourism. Try as he may, going by the National Conference (a Congress Party ally) and PDP’s reaction there is little chance of the BJP grabbing enough seats to do what the PDP leader has called a “mischief”‘.

The provocative words against Pakistan and the plan for Kashmir are bad news for the region’s peace. The peace process is almost dead in the water. As a result, the political consensus in this country on normalisation of relations with India is to become unsustainable, resurrecting the old concept of national security. The Kashmiri resistance against Indian rule will regain momentum. Modi, of course, was still thinking like the Gujarat state CM when while in Kashmir he talked of bringing about “saffron revolution” in Kashmir. This reference to his Hindutva agenda reflects his inner desire, which has no relevance to the place and its people. He is creating conditions that can give Omar Abdullah the satisfaction to claim that he was right in predicting “long after Modi government is a distant memory either J&K won’t be part of India or Art 370 will still exist.”