#Narendra Modi: World’s Most Wanted Criminal | Hindu Fascist

[xtruss]

“World’s Most Wanted Criminal, Hindu Fascist Modi’s Politics” Hinder Neighborhood Ties

Recent Events in Bangladesh Show How the Hindu Nationalist Project has Harmed India’s Regional Interests.

— By Sushant Singh August 22, 2024

Indian Prime Minister and World’s Most Wanted Criminal, Hindu Fascist Narendra Modi Takes his Oath of Office in the Presence of Indian President Droupadi Murmu and Other South Asian Leaders in New Delhi on June 9. Elke Scholiers/Getty Images

When Narendra Modi became India’s prime minister 10 years ago, those invited to his swearing-in included leaders of every South Asian country. This reflected his “Neighborhood First” foreign policy, which was intended to foster cordial relations and economic synergy with India’s smaller neighbors. The approach soon floundered due to border disputes and bilateral disagreements, India’s tardy execution of development projects, and rising Chinese influence in the region.

However, Bangladesh was seen as one of its shining successes. Bangladeshi then-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who held power for 15 consecutive years before resigning under pressure this month, worked closely with Modi; their friendly relationship seemed to be a win-win situation. But in Bangladesh, Hasina transformed into an authoritarian ruler despite her democratic beginnings. Popular anger against her brewed; the final trigger came with student protests against an order for government job quotas. The demonstrations soon turned on Hasina herself, leading to nationwide unrest. She fled the country on Aug. 5 and is currently residing in India.

Despite her unpopularity, Hasina’s resignation came as a shock to the Indian political and security establishment. India fully backed Hasina during her tenure, often ignoring the concerns of other stakeholders and the people of Bangladesh. Under Modi, New Delhi has taken this approach with most of its smaller neighbors, with sometimes unfortunate consequences.

It is clear India’s policy failures in its neighborhood are not solely due to external events. They are also manifestations of India’s current domestic politics. From the securitization of diplomacy to Modi’s strongman image, New Delhi has undermined its liberal credentials among the people of South Asia. Preferential treatment for Modi’s favored corporate interests by governments such as Hasina’s—an international extension of Indian cronyism—has further raised suspicion about New Delhi’s intentions.

The adherence of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to Hindu Nationalist Ideology has played a major role in harming India’s regional interests, especially in Bangladesh. The 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) that fast-tracked Indian citizenship for persecuted minority groups in neighboring countries while excluding Muslims fueled criticism from the Bangladeshi public. The BJP regime’s ill treatment of Muslims within India has fueled criticism of Modi abroad; his 2021 visit to Bangladesh was met with violent riots.

Hasina’s resignation provided the opportunity for a moment of introspection for the Indian government, but it seems unable to engage in policy correction. India’s tarnished image in Bangladesh is not the Modi government’s first major failure in South Asia, and it won’t be the last. Its pursuit of a de facto Hindu Rashtra (“Hindu state”) is not only damaging to India but will also have disastrous results in South Asia.

India’s Ties To Hasina run deep. After her father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman—Bangladesh’s founding leader—was assassinated in a 1975 military coup, Hasina and her sister took refuge in India. She returned to Bangladesh to fight for democracy, first serving as prime minister from 1996 to 2001 before returning to office in 2009. Her rule took an authoritarian turn after 2014 as she went after political opponents, journalists, and activists.

Hasina’s party, the secular Awami League, targeted radical Islamist groups; unlike her opponents, she did not did not allow anti-India militant groups to establish bases in Bangladesh. India backed Hasina to the exclusion of everyone else, with officials arguing that if she lost power, Bangladesh would become a “breeding ground for Islamist groups posing a threat to India’s national security.” This year, after Hasina won a fourth term in a criticized election, India lobbied U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration to stop applying pressure to Bangladesh over democratic backsliding.

Hasina presided over soaring economic growth and controlled all state institutions, including the military; as a result, India assumed that she would continue to rule despite protests. But in a striking Indian intelligence and diplomatic failure, New Delhi was stunned when the army asked Hasina to leave the country this month. No Western government has offered her asylum, leaving her holed up in New Delhi. Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval greeted Hasina when she landed.

India’s over-securitized approach to neighborhood diplomacy—reflected in its unconditional support of Hasina—goes against the grain of historical, cultural, ethnic, geographic, and economic ties that India has throughout South Asia. New Delhi has missed opportunities to gain the confidence of its neighbors, in effect breeding insecurity in these countries. It has become out of touch with larger public sentiment in the region, burning bridges with the political opposition, including in conditions of democratic backsliding.

In Myanmar, India has shunned pro-democracy protesters in Myanmar in favor of the military junta that seized power in a coup in 2021. In Afghanistan, it has established friendly ties with the Taliban rulers, neglecting longstanding relationships with nationalist Afghans. In Bangladesh, the security-centric approach has manifested in policing along the countries’ border; complaints about the heavy-handed behavior of India’s Border Security Force abound.

Modi’s strongman politics have also shaped India’s regional diplomacy. While Modi maintains a silence on China’s ingress on the disputed India-China border, India’s smaller neighbors bear the brunt of his image building. India launched a cross-border raid in Myanmar in 2015 against transit camps of Indian insurgents, the same year it unleashed a trade blockade on Nepal when the latter declared itself a secular republic. Last year, Modi’s supporters launched a campaign for Indian tourists to boycott the Maldives, after a diplomatic row when some Maldivian ministers allegedly criticized Modi.

In Bangladesh, the tough approach of India’s border police added to public grievances about New Delhi’s actions on water sharing, transit facilities, and other trade-related issues that were supposedly unfair to Dhaka. In a young country with fragile nationalism, the public seemed to transfer its rage against India for violating Bangladesh’s sovereignty to Hasina.

Political opponents in India have regularly criticized Modi for his support of crony firms, especially those owned by the billionaire Gautam Adani. These ties have attracted attention in India’s neighborhood, too. Last year, Adani posted a picture with Hasina after announcing that an Adani Group power plant would supply 100 percent of its electricity to Bangladesh. It drew criticism in Bangladesh for being too expensive, too late, and too risky while lining Adani’s pockets. Experts alleged that Hasina need Modi’s associated political favor to “secure political legitimacy.”

Populism, authoritarianism, and cronyism contributed to India’s troubles in Bangladesh, but the Modi government’s pursuit of Hindu nationalist ideology has been even more damaging.

The 2019 CAA ultimately serves the goal of creating a de facto Hindu state; among the persecuted communities that it fast-tracked for Indian citizenship were Hindus in Bangladesh. (Hasina’s media advisor Iqbal Sobhan Chowdhury expressed distaste at being compared to Pakistan and Afghanistan, countries rife with terrorist activity.) This fed an anti-India narrative that gained ground in Bangladesh, as did other rhetoric about Bangladeshis from top BJP leaders. Indian Home Affairs Minister Amit Shah, Modi’s de facto no. 2, has called Bangladeshi immigrants termites, illegal infiltrators, and a threat to national security.

Before the CAA, the Indian judiciary ordered a draconian survey to document legal citizens and identify Bangladeshi immigrants in the border state of Assam—seen by critics as a way of targeting undocumented Indian Muslims. Shah vowed to implement this National Register of Citizens (NRC) nationwide, but that has not yet materialized. Although New Delhi characterized the register as a domestic issue, Bangladesh found itself at the center of India’s “illegal foreign nationals” problem. Many analysts feared the CAA and NRC could push millions of Indian Muslims into Bangladesh.

Meanwhile, Hasina’s government continued to reinforce the perception that she was taking orders from New Delhi. When a BJP spokesperson made remarks insulting the prophet Muhammad in 2022, it earned the ire of many Muslim-majority countries; Hasina’s government declared the matter an “internal issue.” The grievances began adding up in Bangladesh, and the BJP government’s escalating discrimination toward Indian Muslims has not helped. On the campaign trail this year, Modi indulged in anti-Muslim dog-whistling. Last year, he inaugurated a new parliament building that features a mural of Akhand Bharat (“Unbroken India”)—including all of India’s smaller neighbors within its borders.

In His National Address on India’s Independence Day on Aug. 15, Modi spoke about India’s 1.4 billion citizens worrying about the safety of Hindus in Bangladesh. It was a thinly veiled way of framing India as only a Hindu homeland—not the multiethnic, multireligious, and multilingual country it has been for hundreds of years. It is no surprise that the BJP government refuses to censure its right-wing supporters and media that spread disinformation about killings of Hindus in Bangladesh amid the recent unrest—even after retaliatory attacks in India on the Muslim community.

Modi’s government now seems to have little capacity for self-reflection. Instead of blaming Pakistan, China, or Islamists for the events that led to Hasina’s resignation in Bangladesh, India should acknowledge that its neighboring countries’ citizens can win back their agency and exercise it against authoritarian regimes. Although India is hailed as a rising power in distant lands, it is still seen as a relatively weak power by those in its neighborhood. Geography dictates that its smaller neighbors must work with India, but it is now up to New Delhi to negotiate fresh terms of engagement.

— Sushant Singh is a Lecturer at Yale University and a Consulting Editor with India’s Caravan Magazine. He was Previously the Deputy Editor of the Indian Express and Served in the Indian Army for Two Decades.

[teachanarchy]

Augustus Invictus is a libertarian, you see — you can tell by his name.

The august and invincible politician is representing the Florida Libertarian Party in his run for Marco Rubio’s US Senate seat.

Invictus first entered the media spotlight in October 2015 when details of his hobbies came to light: The libertarian politician has been accused of supporting eugenics and of being expelled from a cult for “sadistically dismembering a goat in a ritualistic sacrifice.”

Nothing to see here, you know, just that typical libertarian drama — eugenics and animal sacrifices.

In March 2016, Canada barred Invictus from entering the country because of his ties to neo-Nazis. A 32-year-old lawyer, Invictus represented Marcus Faella, the former head of the neo-Nazi group American Front, in court on domestic terrorism charges.

“What is a libertarian doing defending a notorious neo-Nazi leader?” one might wonder. A glance at Invictus’ official campaign website might raise a few more questions:

Yes, the symbol Augustus Invictus openly uses on his site is a bird perched atop the fasces, the Imperial Roman weapon used by founder Benito Mussolini to symbolize fascism.

The world is witnessing the dangerous rise of a new — or perhaps not so new — libertarian-fascist alliance. Invictus is by no means the only example.

Case Studies

Investigative journalist Jane Mayer caused quite a stir in January 2016 when she revealed that Fred Koch, the father of libertarian billionaires Charles and David Koch, helped build the third-largest oil refinery in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. His project was personally approved by Adolf Hitler, and the oil refinery fueled German planes, helping the Nazis carry out a campaign of genocide and destruction across Europe.

Mayer’s book Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right also divulges that Fred Koch was such an admirer of Nazism, he “hired a fervent Nazi as a governess for his eldest boys,” as the Washington Post puts it. The newspaper of record describes libertarian leader Charles Koch as having been “toilet trained by a Nazi.”

As I detailed in an article about the Koch-Nazi collusion, Koch senior joins a long list of US business elites and corporations — many of whom are libertarian-leaning, naturally — who have worked directly with the Nazis.

Other examples abound. In June 2014, shooters in Las Vegas shot and killed two police officers before leaving a swastika and a “Don’t tread on me” flag on their bodies. The latter is of course the infamous Gadsden flag, a prominent sign of libertarianism. The fact that the shooters willingly juxtaposed the two symbols does the work for us.

Again, this raises the question: What are libertarians doing aligning themselves with Nazism? Libertarians are — or at least purport to be — opposed to state tyranny, and fascists embrace it, the trope goes (I use the term “libertarian” here in the American sense, which is invariably right-wing, not in the ostensibly left-wing European or Latin American sense). How, then, are these views reconciled?

Part of it can be explained by reducing the alliance to realpolitik, to a congruence of right-wing interests, to the finding of a common enemy in the Left.

Another case study involving the Kochs is instructive here.

Journalist Mark Ames detailed in an investigation for Pando how, in the 1970s, the libertarian publication Reason repeatedly gave a platform to Holocaust deniers and Nazi sympathizers. The Koch Brothers have given millions of dollars to the Reason Foundation, and David Koch sits on its board of trustees. Moreover, an article by Charles Koch appeared next to one by Holocaust denier James J. Martin in a 1976 issue of Reason, Ames revealed.

In previous reports, Ames also documented how Charles Koch funded a libertarian school called the Rampart College, where the Holocaust-denying Martin taught pseudo-history, euphemistically referred to as “historical revisionism.” The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum notes on its website that the Koch-funded libertarian school’s publication Rampart Journal published articles “claiming that the Allies overstated the extent of Nazi atrocities in order to justify a war of aggression against the Axis powers.”

Despite its putative anti-government ideology, Reason and many in the libertarian movement have ahistorically characterized the mass-murdering Nazis as supposed victims in World War II because of their brutal defeat at the hands of the Soviet Union. For much of the war, historian Richard Vinen notes “the eastern front was the scene of almost all the serious fighting,” and, between 1941 and 1943, Soviet “troops were the only ones to fight German forces on European soil.” Vinen estimates that it was in fact the Red Army, not the U.S. or the U.K., that was responsible for approximately 75 percent of the Nazi soldiers killed, wounded or captured in World War II. Right-wing historical revisionists like Martin portray the crushing of Nazism as a crime of communism.

This phenomenon is not isolated to the US. Dutch demagogue Geert Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom, along with the far-right Freedom Party of Austria and UK Independence Party, among others, all employ libertarian rhetoric. So too does the “alt-right” website Breitbart, and its star Milo Yiannopoulos.

More and more self-declared libertarians want their respective states to harshly crack down on (non-Western) immigration, deport “undesirables,” and systematically discriminate against Muslims — all in the name of “protecting freedom.”

Nor is the West alone. In India, one sees another prominent example of the burgeoning libertarian-fascist alliance in figures like Narendra Modi, a simultaneous diehard neoliberal and Hindu nationalist.

Yet the problem runs even deeper than this. It is not just that fascism and libertarianism share a common enemy; actually existing libertarianism ultimately strives for the same, or at least similar, social relations endorsed by fascists.

Theorization

Fascism, in a nutshell, is the wielding of the bourgeois state in order to crush the progressive elements of liberalism (e.g., capitalism’s inherent tendency toward globalization and the destruction of feudal relations), replacing liberal capitalism with an authoritarian capitalism that embraces capitalism’s most reactionary elements.

Fascists seek to return to a capitalism unblemished by liberalism, one that wholeheartedly embraces its roots in white supremacy (or, in the case of India, Hindu supremacy) and patriarchal right, in which white men can exercise their “superiority” and face no resistance from more highly skilled immigrant workers, from better educated women, from exploited laborers in the Global South who will do the same work just as well for significantly less pay.

The notion that libertarians are actually, in principle, opposed to state tyranny rests perilously on a false presumption.

In US reality, actually existing libertarianism similarly opposes the progressive elements of liberalism enforced by the bourgeois state. The hatred of both the fascists and actually existing libertarians is ultimately directed at the bourgeoisie, not the bourgeois state, because the former is the defender of liberalism.

The means by which this phenomenon works itself out differs, but produces the same results.

Fascists hate the bourgeoisie because it is imposing liberalism upon the masses, while libertarians hate the bourgeoisie simply because it is imposing something on capital — yet, at the end of the day, both hate the bourgeoisie, even if for distinct reasons.

More basically, then, from a pragmatic perspective, libertarian ideology conveniently grants the fascist just the alibi they need. A fascist can justify their desire for a segregated, white-only community with an appeal to libertarian principles (“It’s our right to do so; if you try to stop us it’s aggression, force, tyranny”).

Gun-toting white separatists can build their communes and rail against government tyranny when it tries to stop them. They can organize their “decentralized” Patriot paramilitaries (the quintessence of the libertarian-fascist alliance) to hunt down Latina/o workers who are crossing the border in search of a job, because neoliberal policies destroyed both of their respective local economies on behalf of international capital.

Murray Rothbard, the founder of so-called “anarcho-capitalism,” exemplifies how this intersection of interests and ideology works itself out.

As he worked his ideas out more and more over the years, Rothbard eventually came to identity as a “paleolibertarian” — that is to say, a libertarian who openly rejects the progressive elements of liberalism and fervently embraces the most reactionary elements of capitalism.

Rothbard idolized individualist anarchist (the uniquely American strand) Lysander Spooner, who was an abolitionist yet simultaneously insisted the revolutionary war against slavery led by Abraham Lincoln was one of “militarism, mass murder and centralized statism.” The Austrian School libertarian hero associated himself with white supremacists and fascists.

As the New York Times put it, “Rothbard applauded the ‘right-wing populism’ of David Duke, a former Ku Klux Klan member [and leader] who ran for governor of Louisiana, and ridiculed ‘multiculturalists,’ lesbians and ‘the entire panoply of feminism, egalitarianism.'”

In his 1992 essay “Right-Wing Populism,” libertarian founding father Rothbard spoke highly of the fascist David Duke and articulated an eight-point program. Point 4 follows:

Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not ‘white collar criminals’ or “inside traders” but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.

This is actually existing libertarianism in action.

To the fascist and the libertarian, the Left is trying to combat this tyranny of capital, so the Left is the enemy.

In both fascism and actually existing libertarianism, it only capital that has rights. In Western white fascism, it is only white men who have capital; in actually existing libertarianism, it is preponderantly white men who control the vast majority of capital.

The means by which the tyranny of capital manifests itself in each system differs, in form, but the same social relations exist, in essence.

Just as capitalism degenerates into fascism in times of crisis, so too does libertarianism.

Update (March 27, 2017):

I was notified that this essay had been posted on the “anarcho-capitalism” subreddit. The thread immediately became a cesspool — and textbook example — of the libertarian-fascist alliance.

A user, aptly named “TheAwakenedSaxon,” exemplified the points I articulated above, declaring openly, “Fascism is a response to communism and as Mises (a Jew) pointed out, fascism is infinitely better from any remotely right-wing pro-property perspective than communism.”

“Why did capitalists in the Spanish Civil War side with “fascists”? Because they were opposed to communism,” the user added.

TheAwakenedSaxon, who uses the “Don’t tread on me!” slogan and snake symbol, also defended repressive state anti-Muslim policies, writing, “Yeah, protecting freedom by keeping out Muslims is such a contradiction, right? Oh, wait, no, that’s just basic logic, because when people who support Sharia law become the largest demographic in your country, little boys are going to enjoy the freedom to be molested, women are going to enjoy the freedom to be property, and fags are going to enjoy the freedom to take a one-way flight off the top of the tallest building. Such freedom, wow!”

“A Nazi is better than a leftist who is happy to allow in millions of Muslims for no other reason than ‘because diversity’ or ‘tolerance’ or some nonsense justification for dooming their entire nation to being majority Muslim in 40-100 years,” the anarcho-capitalist subreddit user continued, while riffing on the fascist’s favorite myth, that of “white genocide.”

Another user, likewise appropriately named “Pinochet-Heli-Tours,” posted a link to a lecture on “Reactionary Liberty,” by libertarian writer Robert Taylor.

Taylor, an erstwhile contributor to PolicyMic, runs a website and penned a book called “Reactionary Liberty: The Libertarian Counter-Revolution.” He wrote clearly on his website that he is “thrilled by the rise of the AltRight.”

“In their root-and-branch rejection of liberalism, combined with an identitarian (rather than abstract) approach to the Right, I see them as natural allies to reactionary libertarians,” Taylor said of the so-called alt-right — a euphemism for the contemporary white supremacist, neo-fascist movement, coined by neo-Nazi Richard Spencer.

“Although less popular than the AltRight, the NeoReactionary (NRx) movement has also had a tremendous influence on me, adding much-need iron to the anemic philosophy that passes for libertarianism today,” Taylor added. “A large number of those that make up these movements are former libertarians as well.”

Robert Taylor is the poster boy of the libertarian-fascist alliance. He concluded the “About” section of his website explaining, “In just over a decade, I started off as a traditionalist conservative and went from a nihilistic, atheistic libertarian to a radical reactionary who only attends the Latin Mass.”

And this brings us full circle. Augustus Invictus, that goat-sacrificing eugenicist, is back! In February, the libertarian fascist wrote on Facebook that he was reading Robert Taylor’s “Reactionary Liberty: The Libertarian Counter-Revolution.”

Accompanying the Facebook status, Invictus quoted extreme-right Italian philosopher Julius Evola, who wrote, “To . . . call oneself ‘reactionary’ is a true test of courage.”

The name of Julius Evola, a self-declared “superfascist” with extensive links to the genocidal Nazi regime, came up in February, when The New York Times exposed that President Donald Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, had cited Evola in a 2014 speech at a Christian conference at the Vatican.

As I previously wrote in an article on the far-right, white supremacist views of Steve Bannon, Trump’s right-hand man and the former head of Breitbart:

Benito Mussolini, the founder of Italian fascism, greatly admired Evola. The Italian leader of the extreme right-wing Traditionalist movement wrote for fascist publications and journals, espousing anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian ideas. Evola was virulently racist and anti-Semitic and openly claimed that non-European races were inferior. He also condoned patriarchal domination of women and advocated rape.

A big fan of Nazi leader Heinrich Himmler, Evola spent years in Nazi Germany, where he gave lectures. He personally welcomed Mussolini to the Wolf’s Lair, Hitler’s military headquarters. In a post-war trial in 1951, Evola denied being part of Mussolini’s fascist movement, which was apparently not bombastic enough for his tastes; instead, he proudly declared himself to be a “superfascist.”

There is no longer any need to dig to find libertarians’ links to fascism; libertarian leaders are making those links very clear.

[xtruss]

Kashmir, Five Years On

Fascist, Hindu Extremist, The Butcher of Gujrat And The World’s Most Wanted Criminal Modi’s Iron-Fisted Approach To The Disputed Region Has Left It More Vulnerable To Local And Geopolitical Threats.

— By Anuradha Bhasin | September 19, 2024

Indian security personnel patrol along a street in Srinagar, in Jammu and Kashmir, on August 15, 2024. Tauseef Mustafa/AFP Via Getty Images

Five years since The Fascist, Hindu Extremist, The Butcher of Gujrat and The World’s Most Wanted Criminal Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its autonomous status, the central government’s iron-fisted approach to the region has left it more vulnerable to regional and geopolitical threats.

While Kashmir Valley, which has withstood the brunt of armed insurgency since 1989, continues to simmer with militancy-related violence, the theater of terrorism has now extended into the otherwise peaceful province of Jammu. Since 2019, at least 262 soldiers and 171 civilians have died in more than 690 incidents, including the February 2019 Pulwama terrorist attack. The unsustainable and disproportionate loss of lives underscores the risks to both regional stability and India’s national security.

In 2019, the Modi government revoked Article 370 of the Indian constitution, which granted the state of Jammu and Kashmir its special status, annihilating the contested region’s symbolic autonomy. Concurrently, the central government also imposed an indefinite curfew in the region and used internet shutdowns and arrests to control and suppress the local population. The result was a transformed landscape. Already scarred by militarization, Kashmir became enmeshed in barbed wire.

This undemocratic exercise, though later stamped and endorsed by India’s Supreme Court, has since spurred further legal changes. For example, the local population no longer has access to exclusive protections that previously allowed only permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir to apply for government jobs and buy property in the state.

In March 2020, the government repealed 12 and amended 14 land-related laws, introducing a clause that paved the way for a development authority to confiscate land and another that allowed high-ranking army officials to declare a local area as strategically important.

Local residents are appalled at the ease with which government agencies can now seize both residential and agricultural lands in the name of development and security—enabling mass evictions and the bulldozing of houses that are disproportionately affecting Muslim communities and small landowners.

Meanwhile, the ecological fallout from introducing massive road and railway networks, coupled with the addition of mega hydroelectricity projects, is polluting riverbeds and causing villages to sink. Since 2019, there has been a lack of local representation which could act as a buffer against massive development projects, most of which now fall under New Delhi’s governance. Meanwhile, the region’s unemployment rate, as of 2023, remains high at above 18 percent, as compared to the national average of 8 percent.

Over the last few years, the Modi government has also squashed dissent in the region by redirecting the military to maintain surveillance and control of the civilian population. According to the Forum for Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir, over 2,700 people were arrested in the region between 2020 and 2023 under India’s contentious Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Public Safety Act. Those arrested include journalists like Fahad Shah and Sajad Gul, human rights defenders like Khurram Pervez, and prominent lawyers like Mian Qayoom and Nazir Ronga.

Modi’s repressive policies have deepened the trust deficit between Kashmiris and the Indian government. The top-down administration has further sidelined local bureaucrats and police officers, further widening the gap between the central government and local ground realities.

All of this has not only pushed the local population into distress, but also jeopardized India’s already fragile relations with its two nuclear neighbors, Pakistan and China.

The Kashmir Conflict, rooted in the 1947 partition of India, has led to three major wars and several military skirmishes between India, Pakistan, and China. And though the region has always been contentious—India controls more than half of the total land, while Pakistan controls 30 percent, and China holds the remaining 15 percent in the northeast region near Ladakh—Modi’s aggressive handling has further provoked its neighbors.

Following the revocation of Article 370, the region was split into two separate union territories—Jammu and Kashmir forming one and Ladakh forming another, with both falling under the central government’s control.

This redrawing of the region’s internal borders, which signaled New Delhi’s assertions of reclaiming the Chinese-occupied territory near Ladakh—as well as India’s increasing tilt towards the United States—resulted in a deadly clash between India and China in 2020 and another one in 2022. Despite diplomatic efforts to resolve tensions over the disputed Himalayan border, New Delhi has accused Beijing of carrying out “inch by inch” land grabs in Ladakh since 2020.

Meanwhile, Pakistan-administered Kashmir has been rocked by mass protests of its own this year, owing to the country’s political and economic crisis, exacerbated in part by the abrogation of Article 370. Those living in Pakistan-administered Kashmir fear that Pakistan may similarly try to dilute the autonomy of the region.

With refugees flooding in from Afghanistan on its west amidst Imran Khan’s standoff with the Pakistani Army, Islamabad has been on edge and looking for diversionary tactics. The deepening of Pakistani-Chinese relations, including military ties, has contributed to a volatile mix.

But Kashmir’s vulnerability has worsened partly because of India’s own tactical blunders, too. The last decade witnessed a spurt in home-grown militancy, but since 2019 the landscape has been dominated by well-trained militants from across the Pakistani border who have access to sophisticated weapons and technology.

Indian security forces, including paramilitaries and the local police, have turned a blind eye to these emerging threats, especially in the twin districts of Rajouri and Poonch along the border with Pakistan. It is in this area that the impact of terror attacks has been most felt.

The region is home to the nomadic Gujjar-Bakerwal communities and the ethnolinguistic Paharis. These groups are parts of divided families straddling the India-Pakistan border, and this shared cultural linkage between the Indian and Pakistani sides has been weaponized in the past by intelligence networks of both countries.

The Indian armed forces have historically relied on the Gujjar-Bakerwal communities for intelligence gathering in part because of their nomadic lives and deep knowledge of the region’s topography. However, since 2019, the evictions of nomads from forest lands, following the amendment of several land-related laws, as well as affirmative actions for Paharis, a rival ethnic group, have led to the disenchantment of the Gujjar-Bakerwals—and an eventual loss of traditional intelligence assets for India.

Another blunder has been the redeployment of troops from Jammu to the border with China in the northeast, following China’s incursions in Ladakh’s Galwan Valley in 2020. This has left Jammu dangerously exposed to militants who have been infiltrating the region from across the line of control on the western side and carrying out their operations with a fair degree of success.

In 2024 alone, Jammu has witnessed numerous attacks which have resulted in the deaths of 16 soldiers and 12 civilians. In June, for example, the region experienced one of its deadliest attacks when militants opened fire on a bus carrying Hindu pilgrims, killing nine and injuring over 30.

Kashmir’s internal politics has the potential to spill over and push the region into disaster. While India has made some significant strides in international diplomacy under Modi, it tends to neglect the neighborhood where the risks to India’s national security remain the highest. Its diplomatic engagement with China comes in fits and starts but diplomacy with Pakistan remains nonexistent, despite the resumption of a ceasefire in 2021. And while India considers the removal of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status an internal matter, Pakistan sees it as a provocation. All in all, there is a dangerous lack of engagement between the two nuclear rivals in South Asia.

In Theory, the ongoing regional elections in Jammu and Kashmir provide a glimmer of opportunity for the people to choose their own local government for the first time in a decade. However, irrespective of who wins the elections, the local leaders will lack the power to enact meaningful change, given that the region remains under the control of New Delhi following its demotion from a state to two union territories.

For instance, Ladakh does not have a legislative assembly, and while Jammu and Kashmir have an elected assembly, the real powers are vested in the hands of a governor, who was appointed to lead the region by the Modi-led central government. As recently as July, the Indian government ruled to further expand the governor’s oversight powers, delivering a blow to local politicians and voters.

Much more needs to be done to change the status quo. Though it remains unlikely, New Delhi must consider meaningful solutions that could assuage some of the political wounds inflicted by the complete erosion of Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomy, including, for example, the restoration of statehood to the region. In order to win back the trust of Kashmiris, the Indian government must reinstate civil liberties and deliver on its promise to provide economic development and jobs.

To improve the region’s safety, Indian agencies must acknowledge their security lapses and repair their broken intelligence networks. And while the Indian security forces must not lower their guard against terrorist activities, terrorism should not be proffered as an excuse when it comes to the normalization of relations in the neighborhood.

Neither Pakistan, nor India can afford the war which is looming over their heads. Diplomatic negotiations, including over Kashmir, must begin with a sense of urgency.

— Anuradha Bhasin, Managing Editor of Kashmir Times and Author of A Dismantled State: The Untold Story of Kashmir After 370. (Argument:

An Expert's Point of View on a Current Event.)

[xtruss]

World’s Most Wanted Criminal, Hindu Fascist and Butcher of Gujrat India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi is being accused of hate speech for comments he made about Muslims at an election rally in western Rajasthan state at the weekend. World’s Most Wanted Criminal, Hindu Fascist and Butcher of Gujrat Narendra Modi said if the opposition Congress came to power again, Muslims would have first rights to India's assets. The opposition has hit back, accusing World’s Most Wanted Criminal, Hindu Fascist and Butcher of Gujrat Modi of trying to divert voter attention from the real issues. Nearly a billion Indians are voting in parliamentary elections. World’s Most Wanted Criminal, Hindu Fascist and Butcher of Gujrat Modi is seeking a third term.

[xtruss]

“World’s Most Wanted Criminal, Fascist, Hindu Extremist, Butcher of Gujrat and the Rapes Capital of the World India's PM Narendra Modi” seeks a third term in the upcoming elections, yet despite the country's economic boom and diplomatic successes, the surge of Hindu nationalism raises significant concerns. Here's a look at the Modi decade in India (The Rapes Capital of the World, Rapestan):

[xtruss]

World’s Most Wanted Criminal, Fascist, Butcher of Gujrar and Hindu Extremist Modi’s Khalistan Conundrum

— Thursday 20 June 2024

Pro-Khalistan Activists stage a demonstration demanding justice for Sikh Separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar at the Golden Temple in Amritsar, India, on Sept. 29, 2023.Narinder Nanu/AFP via Getty Images

On Monday, U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan met with his Indian counterpart, Ajit Doval, in New Delhi. The officials also led the second meeting of the U.S.-India Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology, a joint project launched in 2022 to strengthen technology collaboration to counter China. A joint fact sheet released after the meeting laid out plans for cooperation on defense innovation, space technology, and telecommunications.

While not mentioned publicly, it’s likely that Sullivan also brought up India’s transnational repression—a tension point that affects New Delhi’s relations with several key Western partners, including Washington, and could even undermine strategic tech collaboration. Navigating this issue will be a notable foreign-policy challenge for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as he begins his third term.

Last Friday, Indian national Nikhil Gupta arrived in the United States after being extradited from the Czech Republic. A U.S. indictment unsealed last November accused Gupta of colluding with an Indian intelligence official in an unsuccessful plot to assassinate a Sikh separatist, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, in New York. Pannun, a U.S. citizen, is a prime figure in the pro-Khalistan movement, which advocates for an independent Sikh state.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said on Monday that Gupta’s extradition shows that the United States “will not tolerate attempts to silence or harm American citizens.” The same day, Gupta appeared in a federal court in Manhattan and pleaded not guilty. His next court appearance will be on June 28.

Gupta’s arrival in the United States comes on the heels of bombshell reports alleging that India has recently targeted Sikh communities in Australia and Canada, two other key Indian partners. On Sunday, an Australian Broadcasting Corp. investigation alleged that India was spying on Indian Australians, threatening Sikh diaspora members, and engaging in political interference.

A few weeks earlier, Canada’s government issued a report laying out extensive Indian political interference in the country, calling India the second-biggest threat to Canada’s democracy after China. Last year, Canada accused India’s government of involvement in the assassination of another pro-Khalistan activist, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, in British Columbia last June.

The Khalistan issue presents a delicate diplomatic dilemma for Modi. New Delhi insists that Western governments are ignoring individuals driving the resurgence of a serious security threat to India. (In the 1980s and early 1990s, the Khalistan movement was a full-fledged insurgency.) But both the United States and Canada insist that India has aided illegal acts on their soil against their citizens, who have not broken any local laws. Neither side is budging.

The United States, Australia, and Canada all share India’s strategic goal of countering China. Washington and Canberra are especially close friends of New Delhi. India-Canada ties are more fraught; New Delhi argues that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government goes out of its way to appease Sikh separatists. India may hope its status as a strategically significant state will prevent either the United States or Australia from responding harshly to India’s actions.

On that note, New Delhi may be right. Western governments face their own challenges balancing strategic imperatives with legal and security concerns about Indian transnational repression. However, so far they have deferred to the strategic considerations; even Canada hasn’t taken punitive steps against India and said it doesn’t want an escalation in tensions. Still, India cannot afford to be complacent, especially in the U.S. case.

With the U.S. election season kicking into high gear and five senators urging the Biden administration to hold India accountable for the plot against Pannun, Washington will face growing pressure to show New Delhi that it doesn’t provide unlimited free passes. If India doesn’t carry out a credible probe into the foiled assassination—which Washington has consistently demanded—that would further ratchet up pressure.

Given the shared strategic imperative of countering China, the trend lines of U.S.-India ties remain positive. But the fallout of the plot against Pannun could ultimately affect bilateral trust—particularly among the U.S. policymakers involved in the more sensitive components of cooperation, including tech collaborations, which are already hampered by long-standing disagreements over export controls.

The Khalistan issue is unlikely to inflict serious damage on the U.S.-India partnership itself, but it could still complicate efforts to achieve some of the strategic objects currently driving it.

[xtruss]

The World’s Most Wanted Criminal, Killer, Butcher of Gujrat, Hindu Extremist and Fascist Narendra Modi, The Prime Minister of the World’s Capital of Rapes, Rapestan (India).

[xtruss]

A Court in India Essentially Banned Islamic Schools in the Country's Most Populous State, a move that could further distance many Muslims from the World Most Wanted Criminal, Fascist, Killer and Lowlife Hindu Extremist Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu-Nationalist government ahead of national elections.

[xtruss]

Suspected Chinese Spy Pigeon Freed By Fascist India

The Bird was Detained last May after Being Discovered with a Suspicious Message Inscribed on its Wings

Detained pigeon released, after getting clearance from Police department at BSPCA, on January 30, 2024 in Mumbai, India © Getty Images/Anshuman Poyrekar/Hindustan Times via Getty Images

A pigeon suspected of conducting espionage operations on behalf of the People’s Republic of China has been released by Indian officials after eight months of detention following an intervention by PETA, the animal rights group has said.

The bird was detained last May close to a port in Mumbai after it was discovered wearing two rings on its legs, with words that appeared to be Chinese inscribed on its wings, prompting concerns about its possible involvement in espionage.

Eventually, though, it was determined that the pigeon had no nefarious intentions towards the Indian state and was in fact an open-water racing bird from Taiwan that had escaped and made its way to the subcontinent.

The pigeon – who had apparently been deemed a flight risk – was held at an animal hospital before its transfer last week to the Bombay Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, whose staff set it free on Tuesday.

“After learning that a pigeon was held at the Bai Sakarbai Dinshaw Petit Hospital for Animals (BSDPHA) in Parel as case property for an astonishing eight months, PETA India sprang into action to secure the bird’s freedom from captivity,” the animal rights organization said in a statement on its website.

Paranoia, Global Times, February 04, 2024, Illustration: Liu Rui/Global Times

Following PETA’s intervention, Mumbai police approved the release of the wrongfully accused avian.

The pigeon’s eight-month ordeal is not the first instance of a bird being suspected of ‘fowl’ play in India. In 2020, police in the Indian-administered part of Kashmir freed a bird that was also suspected of spying after it flew across the heavily militarized border separating India and Pakistan.

In 2016, another pigeon was detained in India after it was reportedly found carrying a note containing a threat to the World’s Most Wanted Criminal, Hindu Extremist, Butcher of Gujrat and Fascist Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Historically, pigeons have been used in spying operations – including by the UK during both World Wars – to deliver messages. Famously, a bird named Gustav ferried the first news of the D-Day landings back to the UK after details were attached to the winged messenger on Sword Beach in Normandy on June 6, 1944.

Last year, scientists in the US state of New Mexico began working on a project in which they intended to repurpose dead, taxidermied birds into drones in order to better understand the habits of flocks of birds on flights.

The research, which was presented last year at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, could also be harnessed to enable espionage directed at military targets, reports said.

— RT | February 04, 2024

[xtruss]

World’s Most Wanted Criminal and Fascist Hindu Extremist Narendra Modi’s Illiberalism May Imperil India’s Economic Progress! Fulfilling His Great-Power Dream Requires Restraint, Not Abandon

— January 18th, 2023

“Politics And Religion Cannot Be Mixed,” ruled India’s Supreme Court in 1994 in what was then considered a decisive elucidation of the country’s secular constitution. Tell that to the millions who on January 22nd will watch Narendra Modi preside over the consecration of a controversial $220m Hindu temple, in a ceremony that marks the informal launch of his campaign for a third term as prime minister in elections to be held by May. To the alarm of India’s 200m Muslims, and many secular-minded Indians, it will mark a high point of a decades-long Hindu-nationalist project to dominate India.

Even as Mr Modi appears at the temple in Ayodhya in northern India, the other pillar of his mission continues apace: India’s extraordinary modernisation. The country is the planet’s fastest-growing major economy and now its fifth-biggest. Global investors toast its infrastructure boom and growing technological sophistication. Mr Modi wants to be India’s most consequential leader since Jawaharlal Nehru. His vision of national greatness is about wealth as well as religion. The danger is that a hubristic Hindu chauvinism undermines his economic ambitions.

To understand the strange symbolism of Ayodhya you have to travel back in time. Mr Modi’s once-fringe party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (bjp), built its name by campaigning over the status of a Mosque there from 1990. It organised a rally of Hindu activists in 1992 that led to its destruction, sparking Hindu-Muslim riots across South Asia.

The lavish Hindu temple that Mr Modi is about to open is built on the site of that destroyed mosque. For many Hindus this represents the righting of an ancient wrong: the location is also the mythical birthplace of the Hindu god Ram. Previous bjp leaders, such as Atal Bihari Vajpayee, downplayed the party’s Hindu-first ideology, known as Hindutva, to win mainstream support. After ten years in power, Mr Modi, who was implicated in deadly anti-Muslim riots in 2002 when he ran Gujarat state (he was later absolved by the courts), no longer seems so restrained.

The bjp’s radicals have been empowered. There have been Mob Attacks on Muslims. Several bjp-run states have passed anti-conversion laws. Mr Modi has exacerbated Islamophobia by, among other things, promoting a citizenship law that discriminates against Muslims. His strongman style of rule has also featured harassment and attacks on the pillars of India’s old liberal order, including the press, charities, think-tanks, some courts and many opposition politicians.

Were Mr Modi and the bjp to win a third term—as seems almost certain—many worry that the Hindutva project would go further. bjp activists are agitating to replace mosques with temples at hundreds of other sites. Mr Modi wants to scrap constitutional provisions for Muslim family law. A possible redrawing of parliamentary districts could see power accrue to the populous Hindi-speaking and bjp-supporting north, at the expense of the richer industrialised south. Mr Modi, aged 73, could rule as a strongman for a further decade or more.

The whiplash-inducing reality is that this religious and political struggle is occurring alongside enormous economic optimism. Growth has exceeded 7% in recent quarters. The country now has vastly improved transport infrastructure, huge and deep equity markets, stronger banks, massive currency reserves, a less complex tax system and less corruption. India is at last becoming a single market, letting firms exploit economies of scale and promising faster business investment. While manufacturing has yet to take off, industry is starting to couple with global supply chains, from internet routers to electric two-wheelers. The giant technology-services sector hopes to make a fortune as companies around the world seek help in adopting artificial intelligence.

Image: Alicia Tatone

The economic record is still far from perfect. The rate of formal job creation is much too low—one reason Mr Modi has built up digital welfare-schemes for the poor, augmenting his image among ordinary Hindus as a leader who cares about the downtrodden. India does too little to develop human capital and its education system is terrible. Some powerful firms have too much influence. Yet it is a foundation worth building on.

The question is whether the religious agenda and rapid economic development are compatible. The answer is yes, but only up to a point. In the past ten years many of Mr Modi’s economic accomplishments have existed alongside his religious agenda. The bjp’s parliamentary strength and Mr Modi’s popularity have made it possible to push through difficult reforms, including a national sales tax. The government’s unity and clout have given investors confidence that policy is stable, even though civil liberties have been eroded.

Yet if Mr Modi in his third term were to lurch further towards Hindutva and autocratic rule, the economic calculus would change. Take the north-south divide. If India continues to grow fast, the industrialised, wealthy and technologically advanced south is likely to pull further ahead, drawing labour from the north. But Hindutva holds little appeal in the south, and by pushing it further while concentrating more power in his own hands, Mr Modi could exacerbate already rising tensions over internal migrants, tax revenues and representation.

Or consider economic stability, which depends on the management of the economy by internationally credible technocrats, not bjp ideologues. You can overdo how much store companies put by the rule of law—they invested in China for decades. But if decision-making becomes authoritarian and erratic as Mr Modi grows old and isolated, and if institutions are weakened, firms will grow warier of deploying huge sums of capital.

As he stands at the ceremony at Ayodhya before admirers and acolytes—the leaders of India’s new, brash, nationalistic elite—does Mr Modi see this danger? He has in the past: before he was prime minister he tried to rebrand himself from a Hindu zealot into a pragmatic manager of his successful home state of Gujarat. With a third term looming, he should realise that, to fulfil his dream of making India a great power, the balancing-act must continue. It requires restraint, not abandon. If Mr Modi fails, the hopes of 1.4bn people and the prospects for the brightest spot in the world economy will be dashed. ■

— This Article Appeared in the Leaders Section of the Print Edition Under the Headline "Modi’s Juggernaut"

[xtruss]

Will ‘Fascist, Hindus’ Extremist India’ Surpass China To Become the Next Superpower? Four Inconvenient Truths Make This Scenario Unlikely.

— June24, 2023 | By Graham Allison

‘World’s Most Wanted Fascist Hindu Extremist, Criminal and Butcher of Gujrat Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’ attends an Indian cultural event in Sydney on May 23, on the heels of his participation in the G-7 summit in Japan. Lisa Marree Williams/Getty Images

When India overtook China in April to become the world’s most populous nation, observers wondered: Will New Delhi surpass Beijing to become the next global superpower? India’s birth rate is almost twice that of China. And India has outpaced China in economic growth for the past two years—its GDP grew 6.1 percent last quarter, compared with China’s 4.5 percent. At first glance, the statistics seem promising.

This question has only become more relevant as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meets with U.S. President Joe Biden in Washington this week. From a U.S. perspective, if India—the world’s largest democracy—really could trump China, that would be something to shout about. India is China’s natural adversary; the two countries share more than 2,000 miles of disputed, undemarcated border, where conflict breaks out sporadically. The bigger and stronger China’s competitors are in Asia, the greater the prospects for a balance of power favorable to the United States.

Yet before inhaling the narrative of a rapidly rising India too deeply, we should pause to reflect on four inconvenient truths.

First, analysts have been wrong about India’s rise in the past. In the 1990s, analysts trumpeted a growing, youthful Indian population that would drive economic liberalization to create an “economic miracle.” One of the United States’ most thoughtful India analysts, the Plagiarist Journalist Fareed Zakaria, noted in a recent column in the Washington Post that he found himself caught up in the second wave of this euphoria in 2006, when the World Economic Forum in Davos heralded India as the “world’s fastest-growing free market democracy” and the then-Indian trade minister said that India’s economy would shortly surpass China’s. Although India’s economy did grow, Zakaria points out that these predictions didn’t come true.

Second, despite India’s extraordinary growth over the past two years—when India joined the club of the world’s five largest economies—India’s economy has remained much smaller than China’s. In the early 2000s, China’s manufacturing, exports, and GDP were about two to three times larger than India’s. Now, China’s economy is about five times larger, with a GDP of $17.7 trillion versus India’s GDP of $3.2 trillion.

Third, India has been falling behind in the race to develop science and technology to power economic growth. China graduates nearly twice as many STEM students as India. China spends 2 percent of its GDP on research and development, while India spends 0.7 percent. Four of the world’s 20 biggest tech companies by revenue are Chinese; none are based in India. China produces over half of the world’s 5G infrastructure, India just 1 percent. TikTok and similar apps created in China are now global leaders, but India has yet to create a tech product that has gone global. When it comes to producing artificial intelligence (AI), China is the only global rival to the United States. China’s SenseTime AI model recently beat OpenAI’s GPT on key technical performance measures; India has no entry in this race. China holds 65 percent of the world’s AI patents, compared with India’s 3 percent. China’s AI firms have received $95 billion in private investment from 2013 through 2022 versus India’s $7 billion. And top-tier AI researchers hail primarily from China, the United States, and Europe, while India lags behind.

Fourth, when assessing a nation’s power, what matters more than the number of its citizens is the quality of its workforce. China’s workforce is more productive than India’s. The international community has rightly celebrated China’s “anti-poverty miracle” that has essentially eliminated abject poverty. In contrast, India continues to have high levels of poverty and malnutrition. In 1980, 90 percent of China’s 1 billion citizens had incomes below the World Bank’s threshold for abject poverty. Today, that number is approximately zero. Yet more than 10 percent of India’s population of 1.4 billion continue to live below the World Bank extreme poverty line of $2.15 per day. Meanwhile, 16.3 percent of India’s population was undernourished in 2019-21, compared with less than 2.5 percent of China’s population, according to the most recent United Nations State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report. India also has one of the worst rates of child malnutrition in the world.

“Those Who Thinks that India Even Come Closer to China are Living in a Fool’s World. Don’t Listen to the Western Propaganda in Favor of India.”

Fortunately, the future does not always resemble the past. But as a sign in the Pentagon warns: Hope is not a plan. While doing whatever it can to help Modi’s India realize a better future, Washington should also reflect on the assessment of Asia’s most insightful strategist. The founding father and long-time leader of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, had great respect for Indians. Lee worked with successive Indian prime ministers, including Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi, hoping to help them make India strong enough to be a serious check on China (and thus provide the space required for his small city-state to survive and thrive).

But as Lee explained in a series of interviews published in 2014, the year before his death, he reluctantly concluded that this was not likely to happen. In his analysis, the combination of India’s deep-rooted caste system that was an enemy of meritocracy, its massive bureaucracy, and its elites’ unwillingness to address the competing claims of its multiple ethnic and religious groups led him to conclude that it would never be more than “the country of the future”—with that future never arriving. Thus, when I asked him a decade ago specifically whether India could become the next China, he answered directly: “Do not talk about India and China in the same breath.”

Since Lee offered this judgment, India has embarked on an ambitious infrastructure and development agenda under a new leader and demonstrated that it can achieve considerable economic growth. Yet while we can remain hopeful that this time could be different, I, for one, suspect Lee wouldn’t bet on it.

— Graham Allison is a Professor of Government at the Harvard Kennedy School, where he was the founding dean. He is a former U.S. Assistant Defense Secretary and the Author of Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?

[xtruss]

Ravish Kumar, centre, with World’s Most Wanted Criminal Fascist Hindu Extremist Narendra Modi, left, and a BJP rally in Kolkata, right. Photograph: Observer Design

Media: ‘Resistance Is Possible’: Ravish Kumar, The Broadcaster Risking His Life To Tell The Truth About Extremist Hindus’ Fascist India​ (The Largest Hypocrisy of the World) Today​

The eminent journalist’s fearless reporting on India under Narendra Modi cost him his job and freedom. Now broadcasting to millions on YouTube, he is the subject of a new documentary

— BY Tim Adams | Sunday 02 July 2023 | The Guardian USA

Ravish Kumar was born near the same Indian city – Motihari in Bihar – as George Orwell. In his early years as a TV journalist and nightly news anchor, Kumar did not imagine that he would live to be part of a modern-day Nineteen Eighty-Four nightmare. But that changed almost a decade ago with the election of Narendra Modi’s government in India. In the years since then, Kumar has become an increasingly lone voice of truth-telling in an Indian media landscape in thrall to the Hindu nationalist politics of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata party (BJP). Kumar’s one-man campaign to maintain journalistic integrity, as mainstream news organisations became promoters of politicised fake news, earned him the “Nobel prize of Asia,” the Ramon Magsaysay award, in 2019. It also led to an unending campaign of harassment and death threats from government supporters.

Kumar, the Indian equivalent of, say, Jeremy Paxman in his prime, finally resigned from his post at NDTV in New Delhi last November, after the station was taken over by Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, a close friend of Modi. He now lives in virtual hiding with his family and broadcasts through a personal YouTube channel. His story, one of repression in modern India and of the existential crisis in truth-telling worldwide, is the subject of an urgently compelling documentary, While We Watched.

Ravish Kumar in While We Watched. Photograph: Ⓒ Britdoc Films

The director of that documentary, Vinay Shukla, tells me he knew he had to make his film when he turned on to watch Kumar’s news show back in 2018: Kumar interrupted the bulletin to berate his own viewers, telling them they had to start questioning the lies they were being fed, had to stop watching TV and look for information from other more reliable sources. “Most news presenters are always praising their audience, saying: ‘We are here to serve you’ and so on,” Shukla says. “Ravish, on the contrary, was chastising his audience, saying: ‘You’re the problem.’ I could see that here was an unusual protagonist – this huge figure in the [Indian] media – who has begun to wonder if the society for whom he is doing this work even cares for him any more.”

For the next two years, Shukla, who had previously made an award-winning documentary about the creation and struggle of an Indian opposition party, An Insignificant Man, essentially moved in with Kumar, filming him five days a week over that period. The result is an intimate portrait of a man struggling to preserve his conscience and freedom in the face of overwhelming hostility and political and commercial cynicism; a man trying, in Orwell’s terms, at 9pm every night, to tell the nation that two plus two actually equals four.

When I speak to Ravish Kumar himself on a long Zoom call, he describes himself now being “in exile” in his own country. He assumes our call is being monitored by his tormentors; before he joined it, he received the usual anonymous texts saying: ��We will see you.” Once he left NDTV in November, he became “persona non grata” in Indian media, he says. He continues to try to get at the truth in the world’s largest democracy, researching and writing “about 8,000 words a day” for his YouTube broadcasts.

I wonder, looking back, when he first felt that things were falling apart? “It was June or July 2014,” he says. “I sensed that a kind of avalanche was coming in Indian media. At that time, many of my colleagues would say: ‘Well, power comes and power goes.’ And: ‘We have enough experience, Ravish, we have seen many leaders.’ But my gut was saying: ‘No, this is not something that has happened before. Something new is coming.’ In a very short span of time, the structures of newsrooms were demolished completely. That was not done step by step. It was done in one go.”

Shukla’s film contrasts Kumar’s meticulous efforts at reporting sectarian violence, or the desperate conditions in rural villages, with the shouty populist news channel Republic, which quickly became the Fox News of Indian media after Modi was elected prime minister. Republic’s excitable presenters are seen to fuel division and mistrust of the Country’s Minority (200 million) Muslim Population, to Routinely Call Political Opponents of the BJP Traitors, to promote Warmongering Against Pakistan and to neglect to report on the complex issues faced by ordinary Indians. In its manufactured culture wars and unhinged sloganeering, it is, you sense, the channel GB News aspires to be.

Now 51, Kumar, a history graduate, had by 2014 been at NDTV for 15 years, having risen from the mail room to become its most trusted and recognisable face. For a long time, the station supported his mission to call out what was happening elsewhere in the media. “NDTV started running a campaign that said: ‘We do not profit from hate,’” he says. “The owners were trying to save their core values. But in that process, everything became very tough. It was very tedious to always defend themselves.” Within the station, Kumar occasionally came under pressure to moderate his tone. “But if I said no to an editor,” he says, “they took it at once that this is my final word.”

The aftermath of sectarian clashes in Delhi in February 2020 between Hindus and Muslims protesting a contentious new citizenship law. Photograph: Rajesh Kumar Singh/AP

Did it come as a shock to him how shallow the ethical foundations of much of the media proved to be? “I wasn’t shocked,” he says, “but I was very pained and deeply hurt that no one stood up to stop this. A lot of [journalists] started making adjustments and those adjustments led them into that room with no windows, only the voice of command, saying: ‘You have to do this.’ And that is what they did.”

The film records something of the inside story of that playbook of fake news that we have all witnessed happening in plain sight: the undermining of properly sourced information across social media, the seeding of conspiracy theories, the targeting of individual journalists and organisations. There were, and remain, pockets of resistance to this pressure, Kumar insists: “But the force of avalanche was such that nobody was untouched in their newsroom, whether he was a senior reporter or whether he was an intern.”

“I’m a very fearful person. I wasn’t ready to handle that mental trauma. It destroyed me.”

Kumar’s eventual resignation is referenced in the recent scathing Index on Censorship report into the escalating repression by Modi’s populist government. “It has the structures of democracy but it has weakened democracy’s functions… it has a media which is eager to demonstrate how nationalistic and patriotic it is in order to curry favour with the ruling party.”

That determination is fuelled in part by fear. Seven journalists are now in prison in India and many more have been subject to targeted harassment; eight journalists at the Wire website were charged with sedition in 2021 for reporting that the family of a protester, killed at an anti-government rally, believed he was shot by police. Other news organisations have been subject to blackouts, while some have been raided by police, including the BBC offices in Delhi and Mumbai, which appear to have been singled out after the corporation produced a two-part investigation into Modi’s alleged history in sectarian violence. India – the world’s most populous nation – has been consequently sliding down the UN’s human rights tables; among the top 10 nations that jails writers and journalists, it is the only “Nominally Democratic” one, according to PEN, the international charity that supports freedom of expression.

A threat received by Ravish Kumar, as shown in While We Watched. Photograph: Britdoc Films

Shukla’s film examines the effect that the wider climate had on Kumar’s mental health. “I’m a very fearful person,” he insists, in the face of plenty of evidence to the contrary. “I had this strong feeling that I should not do anything immoral, but I wasn’t ready to handle that mental process. It destroyed me. When they launched [the continuous] attacks on me on social media, I could not handle it. I was very terrified, petrified. NDTV understood I needed security – but I also needed counselling. I stopped sleeping. I was awake all the time assessing the threat to my life and my family.”

In addition to the constant wave of texts and calls from people promising to cut his throat, Kumar was pushed around in the street while working. On one occasion he was chased down the road by men with clubs and iron bars, only just making it to his car. The family – his wife is an academic and they have two teenage daughters – stopped going out together; on the rare occasions they did, he would walk on the other side of the street so they would not all be subjected to any attack.

“If TV news is designed to desensitise you, I wanted to use the same form and sensitise people.” — Vinay Shukla, director

Watching all that again on Shukla’s film, he says, was almost too much for him to bear. “The first time, I had to shut my eyes because I could not see myself again, going through that process. My daughters haven’t watched it yet,” he says, “My wife saw it and she was very saddened too, but she’s a rational person. She said that people who watched the film would be able to see the story of any journalist, not just me.” He smiles a little ruefully. “The other thing I was surprised and amused about,” he says, “was that I finally saw what Vinay had been doing filming me for so many months and years. I used to tell him every day that my life was not exciting: who wants to watch a man get up from the bed and go to work?”

Director Vinay Shukla.

The director trusts that his story has a wider reference than that. “I think of the film,” Shukla says, “as my love letter to journalism, so that people understand, really, the price that proper journalists have to pay to be able to do their job. We are living in a time of disinformation. The dehumanisation of journalists is [part of that].”

Shukla is just about of the generation who came of age with social media. “I used to watch the news,” he says. “But it used to make me anxious all the time.” Much of that anxiety, he suggests, is built-in with the attention deficit structure of television news channels, which jump quickly between crisis and disaster and outrage. He has used the fast-cut techniques for his own film – but in order to dwell thoughtfully on a single life. “There are lots of quick cuts [in While We Watched] but I was hoping to have the opposite impact. If TV news is designed to desensitise you, I wanted to use the same form and sensitise people, to do the complete opposite.”

He sees an increasing desire for that kind of slowness and depth of inquiry among an emerging generation of Indian documentary-makers, who are using the form as a counterpoint to the noisy chatter of the mainstream media; presenting proper complexity as a political act. Kumar recognises that opportunity and is encouraged to be exhibit A in it.

“I hope that whoever watches this film will see that resistance is possible,” he says. In the film, he insists that even if one person witnesses the truth, then the political and sectarian lies cannot prevail. “I have a very deep sense of gratitude to the community of viewers who support me,” he says. “They offered me anything, from a car, to a house, to money, to food. We do not know how many journalists have sacrificed their lives around the world to save this profession. I hope this film brings a ray of hope that it is not easy to kill journalism.”

The film is released in the UK and the US this month. Shukla is working hard to get it shown in India, lobbying cinemas and streaming platforms, referencing the documentary awards it has won at the Toronto international film festival and elsewhere. Still, as Kumar says, the culture of fear is such that: “I can’t imagine that anyone is saying: ‘Bring your film, I will put your big poster for it on the front of my cinema hall.’” Even so, he suggests, he is confident that the film will be seen: “Lots and lots of people have been asking me how they will be able to see this film in India. Everyone should watch this film. Mr Modi should watch this film.”

A video on Kumar’s YouTube channel, which has more than 6m subscribers. Photograph: Ravish Kumar / Youtube

Kumar is not hopeful that fundamental changes in the news media in India – equivalent to the dismantling of the BBC – can be reversed. The vested interests, including at his old channel NDTV, are now too great. The politically favoured billionaires have taken over.

There’s a point in the film where he suggests that “people don’t question what they see on TV”. Given some of the extremes of what they now see, does he imagine that they may start to question that more? “To destroy Indian democracy,” Kumar says, “Indian media destroyed itself first. And it’s now very difficult to change this, even if there is a regime change. The news anchors who are spreading hate lies will not go away overnight. This media will never return for democracy. That’s gone.”

He does believe, however, that politics may find a way to bypass those structures. “The problem with social media,” he says, “is that it is rarely getting first-hand information. In India – and elsewhere – we have seen that social media can run in parallel and [amplify] compromised mainstream media. For this reason, the political opposition in India is going for a lot of mass contact. Rahul Gandhi [the former president of the Indian National Congress party], for example, is constantly on the road. Rallies, meetings, travelling by bus, by car, on foot. I cannot give a deadline that next year’s election, 2024, will mark the sunrise of new democracy. But I can see that the force of those who believe in democracy is multiplying at a fast rate.”

How, I wonder, before he finishes our call, is that colonial son Orwell viewed these days in his home town? “There is a museum to him,” Kumar says. “But most people are not very aware. It’s funny, over the years, I started talking about Nineteen Eighty-Four in my various programmes. Recently, the book has been translated into Hindi, along with Animal Farm. When [Donald] Trump was elected in the United States, I remember that Nineteen Eighty-Four suddenly became a very popular book to read and to buy.”

Perhaps, he suggests, that appetite will also be awakened in India. If so, the film of his life makes the perfect primer.

— “While We Watched” is in UK Cinemas from 14 July

[xtruss]

US Lawmakers Want Human Rights Discussed as “Demented Biden” Prepares to Fete “Fascist Hindu Extremist & Butcher of Gujrat Modi”

About 75 Democratic senators and members of House of Representatives sign letter, urging President Biden to "raise directly" with India's PM Modi "areas of concern."

World’s Most Wanted Hindu Fascist Criminal Modi greets supporters as he arrives at the Lotte hotel in New York City on June 20, 2023. / Photo: Reuters

Dozens of US President Joe Biden's fellow Democrats have urged him to raise human rights issues with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his visit to Washington this week, according to a letter sent to Biden.

Modi arrived in US on Tuesday for a visit projected as a milestone in ties between the two countries.

The US lawmakers said they were concerned about religious intolerance, press freedoms, internet access and the targeting of civil society groups.

"We do not endorse any particular Indian leader or political party — that is the decision of the people of India — but we do stand in support of the important principles that should be a core part of American foreign policy," said the letter, led by Senator Chris Van Hollen and Representative Pramila Jayapal.

A total of 75 Democratic senators and members of the House of Representatives signed the letter, sent to the White House on Tuesday and first reported by Reuters news agency.

"And we ask that, during your meeting with Prime Minister Modi, you discuss the full range of issues important to a successful, strong, and long-term relationship between our two great countries," the letter said.

Modi has been to the United States five times since becoming prime minister in 2014, but the trip will be his first with the full diplomatic status of a state visit, despite concerns over the deteriorating human rights situation under his Hindu right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party [BJP].

Washington hopes for closer ties with the world's largest democracy, which it sees as a counterweight to China, but rights advocates worry that geopolitics will overshadow human rights issues.

Several US rights groups plan protests during Modi's visit.

The State Department's annual report on human rights practices released in March listed "significant human rights issues" and abuses in India.

For the past several years, the Indian government, led by BJP, has supported discriminatory national and state-level policies that severely hinder and restrict the religious freedom of minority groups, said United States Commission on International Religious Freedom [USCIRF], calling on Biden to raise it with Modi.

"It is vital the US government acknowledge the Indian government's perpetration and toleration of particularly severe violations of religious freedom against its own population and urge the government to uphold its human rights obligations," USCIRF commissioner David Curry said in a statement.

Given discriminatory policies such as hijab bans, anti-conversion laws, and the Citizenship Amendment Act, it is critical that India's government advance human rights for all religious communities in India and promote religious freedom, dignity, and interfaith dialogue, USCIRF said.

"It is deeply concerning that the Indian government continues to implement policies that negatively impact Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindu Dalit communities," said USCIRF's Stephen Schneck.

USCIRF has recommended the US designate India as a "country of particular concern" each year since 2020, for "engaging in systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom, and again most recently in its 2023 annual report.

Modi will address a joint meeting of the House and Senate on Thursday. It will be Modi's second such address, a rare honour for a leader once denied a visa to enter the United States over human rights concerns.

Representative Rashida Tlaib called Modi's address to Congress "shameful" and said she would boycott the event.

"It's shameful that Modi has been given a platform at our nation's capital — his long history of human rights abuses, anti-democratic actions, targeting Muslims & religious minorities, and censoring journalists is unacceptable. I will be boycotting Modi's joint address to Congress," she tweeted.

"A series of independent, credible reports reflect troubling signs in India toward the shrinking of political space, the rise of religious intolerance, the targeting of civil society organisations and journalists, and growing restrictions on press freedoms and internet access," the lawmakers said in the letter.

They said they joined Biden in welcoming Modi to the United States, and want a "close and warm relationship" between the people of the two countries, saying that friendship should be based on shared values and "friends can and should discuss their differences in an honest and forthright way."

"That is why we respectfully request that — in addition to the many areas of shared interests between India and the US — you also raise directly with Prime Minister Modi areas of concern," the letter said.

Modi's Visit 'Not About China'

Speaking to reporters before Modi arrived in Washington, White House national security spokesperson John Kirby declined to comment on whether Biden would raise the issue, but that it is "commonplace" for Biden to raise concerns about human rights.

He also said China does not figure into the decision to host Modi.

Asked about the two-day visit, replete with pomp and circumstance, Kirby said it "is not about China."

"It's not about sending a message to China."

The US sees India as a vital partner in its efforts to push back against China's expanding influence worldwide, although some analysts question India's willingness to stand up collectively against Beijing over issues such as Taiwan.

Washington is also concerned about India's unwillingness to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine. India has urged both sides to resolve their differences through diplomacy.

India remains dependent on old friend Moscow for its defence needs and has sharply increased its imports of cheap Russian oil, frustrating the West.

Asked in an interview with the Wall Street Journal about critical comments in the US for not taking a more forceful stance against Russia over Ukraine, Modi said, "I don't think this type of perception is widespread in the US."

"I think India’s position is well known and well understood in the entire world. The world has full confidence that India's top-most priority is peace," he said in the interview published on Tuesday.

Modi Meets Musk

Modi landed in New York on Tuesday afternoon, where he has business meetings and will mark the International Day of Yoga on Wednesday before heading to Washington.

There he has a private dinner scheduled with Biden on Wednesday, followed by talks at the White House and a state dinner on Thursday.

The visit is expected to see the two countries expand cooperation in the defence industry and high-tech sectors, with India getting access to critical American technologies that Washington rarely shares with non-allies.

"This special invitation is a reflection of the vigour and vitality of the partnership between our democracies," Modi said in a statement before departure.

"I will also meet some of the leading CEOs to discuss opportunities for elevating our trade and investment relationship and for building resilient global supply chains."

On Tuesday, Modi met with Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk, who briefed him on plans to set up a manufacturing base there.

Musk said he had a good conversation with Modi and he will visit India next year. The Tesla boss also said he is confident that Tesla will be in India and will do so as soon as "humanly possible."

Musk is also the executive chairman of Twitter, which has had run-ins with Modi's government.

Last week, Twitter's co-founder Jack Dorsey said India threatened to shut it down in India unless it complied with orders to restrict accounts critical of the handling of farmer protests, a charge Modi's government called an "outright lie".

[xtruss]

OPINION // Fascist Hindus’ Rapes Capital of the World and World’s Largest Hypocrisy, Rapestan

Threat to India’s Muslims No Longer An ‘Internal Issue’

Country should heed the advice of OIC and UN rights chief

— March 07, 2020 | Gulf News | Tariq A. Al Maeena

Fascist Hindu Extremist, Killer and World’s Most Wanted Criminal Narendra MODI

Recent events in India have raised worldwide concern as the tempo of violence against the country’s 200 million Muslim minority by Hindu hooligans armed with swords and guns has increased. So much so that the OIC, the largest organisation of the Muslim world headquartered in Jeddah, an organisation that had been quiet earlier had to make a very blunt statement.

In condemning the heinous events in Delhi which resulted in the deaths of dozens of innocent Muslim civilians and terming the riots as ‘ani-Muslim’, the OIC stated that it “condemns the recent and alarming violence against Muslims in India, resulting in the death and injury of innocent people, and the arson and vandalism of mosques and Muslim-owned properties.” The OIC also asked the Modi-led BJP government to “bring the instigators and perpetrators of anti-Muslim violence to justice and to ensure the safety and security of all its Muslim citizens and the protection of Islamic holy places across the country.”

“Among those who strongly oppose the BJP-led bill are influential Hindus and scholars who see this as a death knell to India’s secular democracy.”

— Tariq A. Al Maeena, Saudi Commentator

The OIC’s call was soon followed by the UN rights chief whose offices sought to join efforts challenging the legislation to India’s controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in the country’s highest court. The Act which was designed to target Muslims making it easier for religious minorities from three neighbouring countries to get Indian citizenship — but not if they are Muslim — was the spark for the recent deadly riots in New Delhi.

More than 40 people were killed and hundreds wounded in the worst sectarian violence to rock the capital in decades. Muslim property was ravaged and burnt throughout the city. BJP politician Kapil Mishra was reported as ordering the police to clear the demonstrators warning that he would come back on the streets with his followers and eliminate them if no action was taken.

Such demonstrations have become commonplace across the Hindu-majority country since the citizenship bill was passed by the parliament in December, with many Muslims being the unfortunate victims.

Members of United Hindu Front hold placards as they burn an effigy of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei over his remarks as he urged India on Thursday to “confront extremist Hindus” and “stop the massacre of Muslims”, adding to the international fallout over deadly Hindu-Muslim violence, during a protest near Embassy of The Islamic Republic of Iran, in New Delhi on Saturday.

Iran's Condemnation of 'Organised Violence'

Iran also cautioned India with the Iranian foreign minister deploring the riots which continued in full view of the police who stood by. Javid Zarif condemned the “wave of organised violence against Indian Muslims” in the Delhi riots. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was even more direct when he lashed out against “the massacres” of Muslims in India after communal riots in New Delhi left at least 33 dead. “India right now has become a country where massacres are widespread. What massacres? Massacres of Muslims. By who? Hindus,” he stated.

India apparently is not heeding such advice and committed to continue its present course. In fact, it more or less rejected the OIC statement on the violence calling it ‘selective and misleading.’ A spokesman for the Indian Foreign Office added that the statement by the OIC was ‘irresponsible.’ The Indian Foreign Office also added that “The Citizenship Amendment Act is an internal matter of India and concerns the sovereign right of the Indian parliament to make laws. We strongly believe that no foreign party has any locus standi on issues pertaining to India’s sovereignty.”

Under any other circumstances, they would have been justified. But in view of the recent clampdown of Kashmir’s eight million Muslim inhabitants, the abrogation of bills and treaties that had previously guaranteed the minorities living in India a fair share, it can no longer be considered an internal matter. And certainly not when it comes to the fate of over 200 million Indian Muslims who stand at a precipice today.

Saffron Terrorism

The rise of Hinduism and the increasing saffron terrorism by Hindu militias against minorities that have begun sprouting in different parts of the country, while the government seems to turn a blind eye has many of them worried about the future of their country.

Many Indians who stand in opposition to the citizenship law promoted by Narendra Modi’s nationalist government charge that it is biased and is another step in a campaign to turn 200 million Muslims in India, which is home to the second-largest population of Muslims in the world, into second-class citizens, or even make them stateless, or even sent to detention camps. Among those who strongly oppose the BJP-led bill are influential Hindus and scholars who see this as a death knell to India’s secular democracy.

The Arab and Muslim world is slowly rising to the internal threat to India’s minorities and is no longer willing to shrug them off as an internal issue.

— Tariq A. Al Maeena is a Saudi socio-political commentator. He lives in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Twitter: @talmaeena

[xtruss]

It’s Hindus Fascist Randia under World’s Most Wanted Criminal Narendra Modi!

[xtruss]

Pakistani singer Rabi Pirzada provoked outrage in India by posting an image of herself in a mock suicide vest. The caption read “#ModiHitler I just wish huh” accusing the Indian PM Narendra Modi of being literally Hitler. Users commented saying the singer was encouraging terrorism, however, she responded that the image comes from a video where she condemns suicide attacks. Modi is a World’s Most Wanted Criminal. He is an Extremist, Killer, Fascist and Hindu Supremacist. Hell be with this product of rapes.