By Saiansha Panangipalli, MA Global Communication, 2021
Projecting India as an Alternative to China
The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, an association of the U.S., India, Australia and Japan, is committed to a “free and open Indo-Pacific.” Given that China concerns itself with geography and economic growth, its next-door neighbor and aspiring regional superpower, India can potentially be projected as an alternative to China. However, India has some way to go before its economic standing can match that of China. Further, to be a true alternative to China, India needs to position itself as less of a “regional bully” and more of a “benign hegemon” and reembrace the democratic values of freedom of expression and religion that it has traditionally stood for.
The U.S.-based Freedom House downgraded India’s status from “Free” to “Partly Free” in its annual report. Further, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended Congress to mark India as a “Country of Particular Concern.” To project India as an alternative to China, the U.S. can tap into Indian master narratives and engage with Indian publics to renew India’s commitment to freedom of expression and religious harmony.
Indian Master Narratives
India has three key narratives that shape Indian public opinion: Mahatma Gandhi, the Partition of India in 1947, and the Hindutva ideology.
Mahatma Gandhi’s approach of non-violent civil disobedience in opposing British rule is a staple of Indian textbooks. It is difficult to talk about inter-religious harmony, unity among diversity, abolition of caste-system – narratives that form the master narrative about the modern history of India – without talking about Gandhi’s role in advocating for these tenets.
The Partition of India in 1947 is one of the bloodiest and most traumatic events in Indian history. Once the British decided to grant British India independence, it advocated the “Two Nations” theory: one nation for the Hindus and one for the Muslims. This proposition led to rising anti-Hindu and anti-Muslim sentiments, changing borders and steadily increasing cross-border movements, in turn resulting in the displacement and deaths of millions. The trauma and resentment from this event continues to spur and cause Hindu-Muslim communal tensions today.
Finally, Hindutva – or “Hinduness” – is the dominant form of Hindu nationalism. One of the most significant ways the Hindutva ideology has impacted contemporary politics is by supporting the building of Hindu monuments and reclaiming important sites. The Hindutva ideology entered into the mainstream with the landslide electoral success of the current Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. Any critique against Hindu/Hindutva rhetoric is labeled by its proponents as “sickular” (secular), unpatriotic and anti-nationalist. Individuals who question Mr. Modi may even be called traitors and be arrested for sedition.
It is these master narratives – causing the Hindu-Muslim communal tensions and repression of freedom of expression – that the U.S. must counter to project India as a “benign” alternative to China.
Freedom of Expression – Redefining What Is “Anti-Indian”
In 2020, India ranked #140 in the World Press Freedom Index because of the growing repression of journalists and media critiquing Mr. Modi. These journalists and their critiques are labeled as “anti-national.” The U.S. can disrupt the analogy by arguing that dissent or critique of Mr. Modi is not “anti-national” or unpatriotic. Rather, it is the suppression of dissent or critique that is anti-Indian, since colonizers used the same tool to suppress demands for independence and self-determination that are intrinsic to India’s identity.
Further, the U.S. can emphasize that freedom of expression and independence of the media make both the U.S. and India vibrant democracies that celebrate “unity in diversity.” Suppression of freedom of expression and media, however, weakens India’s democracy, eroding the unity in diversity that Mahatma Gandhi advocated.
Lastly, the U.S. can specify that it is possible to challenge critiques of Mr. Modi through the ideals that Mahatma Gandhi advocated – civil discourse and non-violence – rather than through the tool of the colonizers: repression and silencing.
Hindu vs Muslim – Decompressing History and Redefining the “Us” vs “Them”
The U.S. can ease communal tensions by “decompressing” Hindu nationalist narratives by outlining history beyond the traumatic Partition of India. It can argue that India’s history stretches beyond the two-centuries-long struggle for independence and colonial rule, and includes nearly two centuries of Mughal rule that made India one of the most prosperous lands of that time. The “us” vs “them” is not about Hindus vs Muslims – rather, it is about anyone who would challenge the unity in India’s diversity.
The colonizers propagated the “Two Nations” theory that led to the Partition of India. They introduced separate electorates for Muslims and Hindus, which Mahatma Gandhi opposed as he believed it would lead to inter-religious disharmony. The fear of being seen as succumbing to British rule caused Indian madrasas to reject introduction of rationalist subjects in their curricula – dividing Hindu-Muslim communities on the basis of education. Lastly, the colonizers used the “divide and rule” policy to prevent Hindus and Muslims from joining forces against the British.
Thus, the U.S. can emphasize that neither Hindus nor Muslims are the out-group. Rather, it was the British in the past and anyone who impedes Hindu-Muslim unity today that is the out-group and the “anti-Indian.” Hindu-Muslim brotherhood existed before colonialism and was only challenged by outside forces who did not have India’s best interests at heart. Hindu-Muslim brotherhood – referenced in a popular Hindi couplet – is what makes India such a vibrant democracy.
Deploying Counter-Narratives
The U.S. can deploy these narrative contestations by engaging with civil society – NGO’s, think tanks, women’s rights organizations, LGBT groups, legal experts and academicians – by organizing speaker series, educational exchanges and policy collaborations with the aim to persuade the Indian judiciary to take a stronger and more independent role in protecting the Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression and independence of media.
The counter-narratives may not sway Hindu or Muslim extremists, but can be dispersed to educate and sensitize students and populations at risk of radicalization. The U.S. can again engage the civil society through lectures and exchanges to facilitate inter-religious partnerships in developing and disseminating textbooks, modernizing education in madrasas, and preventing radicalization as a tool to answer and solve systemic and practical problems.
For an in-depth analysis by the author on the subject, click here.
The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author. They do not express the views of the Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication or the George Washington University.
Perceptive and practical insights. Truly a case and context for the US to play a strategic and constructive role… and position itself as the master ‘statesman’.
Like the candidness of the commentary on contemporary India; not talked of often and therefore evrn more pertinent! Thanks for the thought-provoking read here!
This was a good read. I just have one doubt. The current Indian government is not very receptive to dissent from its people. Anyone questioning the government on anything from large policy decisions to small day to day activities are labeled anti-national and immediately shut down. If this is how Indians are treated by their government, how can we expect that any initiative by the US government will not be met with hostility from the Indian people and their government? Wouldn’t the US government need the Indian government’s approval to carry out any of the suggested measures?
Great analysis!! As someone who has no prior knowledge of India and Indian politics, this post provided me with working knowledge and understanding of the complexities of the country. I specifically enjoy the focus of shifting the dominant narrative by working through civil society in an effort to increase accountability, transparency, and rule of law.
Wonderful description of the master narratives that still play a huge part in shaping Indian policy today. Insightful and informative piece!
The aspiration of being a “Global Superpower” can be fully achieved by eradicating the thoughts of ‘being accepted by’ or ‘taking help from’ and most importantly, ‘being an alternative’.
I really liked your recommendation of providing counter-narratives. It is a unique way to go about the issue! I found the entire article grounded in great research. Very insightful perspective!
Such a fascinating piece! The overall argument that India could compete as an alternative to China is novel and should be explored further. In general, this post was well organized and well articulated, showing us how the decisions of a few white men could affect a country’s trajectory for decades. I especially liked your argument against punishing dissent in India, that “colonizers used the same tool to suppress demands for independence and self-determination.” Your argument makes so much sense, I’m surprised it hasn’t taken root yet! Great work.
A well written, sobering and thought provoking analysis of the current Indian political issues.
Thanks for this thought-provoking piece. We’re going through a historically unprecedented process where the extreme right is dominating vast areas of society, culture and economy despite the presence of virtually all liberal democratic institutions. This piece comes across as a commitment to break the mutual agreement between the far-right and performative liberalism (media-monopoly is a case in point) which keeps the more frequent, systemic violence out of general view.
Really insightful and thought-provoking article; thank you for providing such a robust analysis; it will be interesting to see how each actor approaches the situation at hand!
I hadn’t realized the slide in both press freedom and overall level of democracy per Freedom House, that is an excellent way to problematize the narrative situation. I look forward to reading the paper to understand the complicated nature of the Ghandi portion of the national narrative and how it is instrumentalized…curious if his legacy is embraced/incorporated by the Muslim Indian communities. As with all domestic internal narrative struggles, the U.S. should be modest in expectations about how much we can influence it, but you’ve identified some prudent and useful lines of discussion.
Great job describing India’s master narratives and pointing out where they come into play in India’s politics and society today. The idea to “decompress” Hindu nationalist narratives through highlighting history and identifying a common enemy (colonialists) is incredibly smart. Politicians use enemy construction all of the time to garner support for political actions – see 9/11 – so I could see this approach as being very effective. I also love the comprehensive approach outlined in your solution that engages many actors within civil society to spur grassroots change. I think this will assist in one area of concern I have, which is process of projection.
When talking about issues such as press freedoms, democratic rights, and religious and ethnic equity, the U.S. is generally a valued voice, but recent challenges such as disinformation during the pandemic, killing of George Floyd, and the Capitol riots have diminished its credibility. After checking out your link to the Freedom House report, I was surprised to find that the U.S. actually ranks lower on the scale than India for Political Rights. I think that creating distance between the U.S. and the counternarratives through engagement with Indian communities and organizations will help to prevent any strong backlash from perceived contradictions.
This is a fantastic piece. I especially enjoyed the way you related British Colonial policies to religious discord seen today. I agree that focusing on India’s larger history is a good way to ease the tensions of partition however I do think that the BJP has changed views of the Mughal Empire with anti-Muslim sentiment.
I also think that India will have to slow its anti-Chinese rhetoric or at least change its anti-Chinese narratives to something more in tune with a “benign hegemon” image. While I think the U.S. can play a large part in India’s rise to regional hegemony, much of the work will have to come from within. India will have to make reality align more closely with the image of “benign hegemon” or else this narrative will run into some epistemological issues.
I find your suggestions for US narratives towards India very insightful into how the narratives of the US can play into the narratives of India. By focusing on the free speech aspect of freedom, you can play into the shared narrative of democracy. The way that you incorporate Gandhi into the narrative works both in India and the US, making it easily understood by many audiences, both the creators and receivers of the messaging.
This was an insightful piece into India’s current state and the need for changes in its narratives. It is interesting to see the possible strategic role the United States can play in changing it narratives. But given the recent history of the United States, do you think the USA would be the perfect messenger to deliver the messages to change important Indian narratives? Do you think it would be more beneficial to showcase the United States as part of the messenger or have the country empower Indian movements to share these narratives with a more discreet approach?
Amazing piece. This is just another example illustrating how colonialist Britain’s actions shaped the master narratives for India amongst other nations. I think the US deploying its counter-narratives through engaging with civil society and Indian grassroots organizations is a good start, but are there any messenger the US could use to amplify its messaging? Are there any risks with direct US engagement with local Indian organizations?
Very interesting analysis regarding the need to build and nurture a counter narrative to mitigate the impacts of the Hindu-Muslim narrative. I wonder if this kind of diplomatic work is in the minds of the current administration and in that of the top experts on US-India relations, across the political spectrum, as this work cannot be done within 3/4 years.
What I’m afraid of generally is that Modi will be the next Erdogan. What I mean is that, given the strategic importance of the country and his position, other countries will “play along” rather than criticizing his rhetoric and I democratic tendencies, thinking strategically about the long term benefits of working now for the democracy and peace of tomorrow. I see this as a potential outcome as we have seen it happening more and more around the world, and seems the more probable if India is seen as a counterweight to China’s influence in the region.
I’m curious to hear what other readers and the author think about this!
Great read Saiansha! I think the history of British colonialism has a lot to do with the “us vs. them” dynamic and this context is key. You say that the US can characterize the British as the “out group” rather than the Hindus or Muslims which is a super interesting idea. I understand that you’re gearing the article from the perspective of US public diplomacy, so you’re argument makes a lot of sense. But if we’re looking at the history of global empire and colonization, the US empire has replaced the British empire’s previous global dominance. Keeping potential rival superpowers weak and divided along ethnic/religious lines is in US interest, so I’m not sure they’d take that approach even though it’s a great idea. If I was India I’d also be skeptical of this security dialogue’s counter to China in terms of it being characteristic of the US’s use of regional allies to do their bidding. India is much weaker than China economically and militarily and also shares a border with China. I’m not sure it would be in India’s best interest to pursue a regional hegemonic competition with another nuclear power. Especially considering recent clashes between the two countries.