INDIA NEWS
Nov 16-30, 2020 - Vol 1, Issue 10
EDITORIAL
US and India: A tale of France at crossroads: Need for acting decisively but sensibly two democracies
US President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi
I
ndia is the largest democracy and the United States the oldest and both have witnessed tectonic shifts in recent years in their political landscape. The rise of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India in 2014 and Donald Trump in the US in 2017 was seen as the emergence of the far-right politics, marginalising liberal/moderate parties at the other end of the political spectrum. If the US saw the rise of white supremacists that fuelled racial divisions in the US, the rise of the Bhartiya Janta Party in India emboldened many rightwing vigilante groups across India. As the social fabric in the US lay tattered following the death of George Floyd triggering Black Lives Matter movement the Republicans were pushed on the back foot by the Democratic Party. In India, the political milieu has remained divided as the Narendra Modi government passed a series of legislations such as the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 (providing sanctuary to minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh), Triple Talaq, Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act 2020 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019 (abrogating Article 35A and amending Article 370 to alter J&K’s special status). The Modi government also benefitted from the favourable Supreme Court ruling paving the way for the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya, and adopted a tough counter-terrorism policy striking on the terrorist hideouts in the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and standing up to China’s aggression in Doklam and Ladakh. These measures have profoundly expanded BJP’s voter’s base wooing women, restive youth and the poor. Unlike Trump, who faces defeat, in 2019 Modi could have been voted out too, but instead retained power with 21 more seats in the parliament. The victory of the Democratic Party under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris—notwithstanding Donald Trump’s alleging electoral irregularity—has been read as the beginning of the decline of the far-right in international
www.indianews.com.au
politics. Political pundits and scholars in India were quick to draw parallels with US politics predicting a liberal-secular comeback against the Modi government. In this backdrop, elections were held in the state of Bihar, along with the byelections in Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Manipur, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Gujarat and Telangana among others. Unlike in the US, the BJP secured a resounding victory. The results have reinforced the broad trend since Modi’s rise in 2014 wherein the underprivileged and women, largely in the rural and semi-urban areas have benefitted from the government’s schemes such as Ujjwala scheme (providing LPG connections to Below Poverty Line families at subsidized rates), Swacch Bharata Mission (Clean India campaign constructing over 80 million toilets), PM’s Awaas scheme (affordable housing for urban and rural poor), Jan Dhan Yojna (opening bank accounts with Rs 0 for direct transfer of financial sustenance), Beti Bachao Beti Padhao (financially self-reliant education schemes for girls), PM Mudra scheme (loan to small businesses up to 1 million rupees), Atal Pension scheme (monthly pension for people in the unorganised sector aged between 18-40), PM Jyoti Bima scheme (life insurance of Rs, 200,000 for people between 18-50), Ujala scheme (low priced LED bulbs) and Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (free ration up to 6kgs per person) at the heels of Covid-19 outbreak, reaching over 800 million. India’s democracy has presented an anti-thesis of the trends in the US politics, perhaps because the Modi government has delivered a large number of schemes aimed at the poor and women, and resolved complex and contentious disputes festering for decades. It would be fair to argue that the Indian voters have risen above their ideological biases and voted for good governance and strong leadership, which should be the hallmark of any thriving democracy and the benchmark for any effective government, irrespective of the ideology it represents.
In the wake of recent terror attacks, the French government said it would crack down on “Islamist separatism” but contradictory responses from officials are playing right into the hands of extremists. Instead of working to unite the country, French authorities are using divisive rhetoric and implementing policies that are further alienating France’s Muslim population. Shortly after the beheading of schoolteacher Samuel Paty, French Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin declared “a war against the enemies within.” He then launched a series of raids against Muslim associations and individuals, who, in his words, “were not necessarily linked with the investigation but to whom we are clearly willing to send a message.” Darmanin also called for the dissolution of anti-Islamophobia organisations, namely the Collective Against Islamophobia (CCIF), which he labeled “enemies of the Republic.” Going even further, the minister said it has always “shocked” him to see ethnic food sections in supermarkets because he believes they contribute to separatism in France. Linking the despicable act of one man to peaceful Muslim groups and institutions, while creating an atmosphere of suspicion, is dangerous. To understand how this enflames extremism, we must first realise that Islamist terrorists strike precisely to sow division and fear. There are many al-Qaeda and ISIS manuals that make their aim of driving a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims explicit. As ISIS outlined in its online magazine as early as 2015, “Muslims in the West will soon find themselves between one of two choices.” The group explained that the prescient threat of terror attacks will lead to Muslims being treated with increased suspicion and distrust, forcing them to “either apostatise [convert]… or [migrate] to the Islamic State and thereby escape persecution from the crusader governments and citizens.” This divide-and-conquer strategy is crucial to terrorist groups replenishing their ranks and shoring up support from sympathisers. They target Muslims who feel marginalised from the rest of society and then lure them with promises of social status and a sense of belonging. That’s precisely why it’s so important for French leaders to work on social cohesion and lead with good examples.
France’s responsibility. Experts broadly agree that structural inequalities and socio-economic deprivation creates a propensity for Muslim radicalisation. They point to the ‘ghettoisation’ of Muslims in French banlieues and the higher rate of unemployment among Muslim youths. True, in an earlier speech in October, Macron conceded the country was not blameless in creating the problem it seeks to combat: “We have constructed our own separatism in our neighborhoods, creating ghettos, at the outset with the best intentions in the world – but we let it happen. We concentrated misery and difficulties, and we know it.” But any goodwill he might have earned for this admission was quickly erased when Macron patronizingly said Muslims needed to develop an “Islam of enlightenment.” The issue to be targeted is not religion. Religion is used by extremists to frame their actions and to capture the attention of Muslims. But the underlying problems are the social and individual risk factors that make a relatively small group of individuals susceptible to joining terrorist organisations or acting on their behalf.
While Macron previously recognised France must do more to offer economic and social mobility to immigrant communities, his new antiradicalism plan following the killings in Nice does not. Instead, Macron is largely concentrating on the alleged shortcomings of Muslim schools and mosques, sports clubs, and fraternal circles. He said the government plans to cut off foreign funding to Islamic schools, train and license imams and Arabic teachers at French universities, ban halal meals from school cafeterias, and limit homeschooling. This sounds like more scapegoating from a government that has failed to push the country in a more inclusive direction, and that is trying to appeal to far-right voters. As the recent stabbings of two Muslim women under the Eiffel Tower suggest, these new measures will do little to fix France’s social ills and will likely exacerbate the threat of
extremism of all types. Indeed, at a time of deep polarization, there is now momentum to discredit academics who question the role of the state in perpetuating socioeconomic inequalities. French Education Minister JeanMichel Blanquer has called out what he describes as “intellectual complicities with terrorism.” He said so-called “Islamo-leftism… wreaks havoc in the university,” and blamed “indigenist, racialist, and decolonial ideologies” imported from North America of “conditioning” the man who killed Paty. Alarmingly, over 100 French academics stated their agreement with Blanquer in a manifesto published in the newspaper Le Monde this month. Voluntarily conflating Islam with Islamism, and branding academics who point out state discrimination against French Muslims as terrorist allies, stifles constructive debate and prevents us from addressing the root causes of radicalisation. The goal of terrorists is to divide our society, and French officials are creating the perfect atmosphere for them to succeed. Combating terrorism requires a united front; it requires cooperation between French Muslims and non-Muslims to integrate. We must reduce social tensions, not increase them. Only in doing so will we deprive extremists of the oxygen they need to survive. Audrey Courty is a PhD candidate and researcher at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia, specializing in political extremism and digital media.
Courtesy: www.wsj.com
By Audrey Courty
Yet French President Emmanuel Macron’s narrow focus on “reforming Islam” is stigmatising Muslims and downplaying
facebook.com/indianewsaustralia
20
