1. Social Welfare Initiatives:
The Modi administration expanded welfare delivery with notable intensity and scale. From enhancing direct benefit transfers and increasing allocations for MGNREGA, to promoting Ayush medicine outlets, large-scale toilet construction, and mass housing programs, its performance in the social sector—while not revolutionary—marked a significant improvement over previous regimes.
Rather than dilute expectations, the government consistently raised the baseline for delivery. Unlike UPA-2, which lost ground politically by shifting too visibly against industrial interests, the Modi government chose to underplay its welfare achievements despite its overt pro-business stance. This may have been a deliberate strategy to avoid ideological scrutiny while efficiently expanding basic service delivery across the population.
2. Infrastructure Strategy:
Infrastructure became another terrain of strategic manoeuvring. The Modi regime systematically outsourced infrastructure development and maintenance to the private sector. This move unburdened the state exchequer from one of the most capital-intensive and corruption-prone governance domains. While such privatisation raises valid concerns about regulation, equitable access, and long-term public accountability, it freed the state from recurring liabilities and is projected to open up significant fiscal space for future administrations.
3. Foreign Policy and Strategic Realignment:
Foreign policy emerged as an early strength for the Modi government. To appreciate the strategic realignment, one must trace the historic relationship between India and the West—particularly the United States.
During the Cold War, the capitalist West viewed non-aligned, socialist-leaning India with suspicion. In response, it deployed two instruments to contain India's ideological orientation: Pakistan and the Indian Right. The U.S. nurtured Pakistan as a regional counterweight and simultaneously invested in the RSS-led Hindu right as a domestic ideological alternative to Nehruvian socialism. This dual strategy dates back to the Janata Party umbrella coalition, including Indian communist parties that briefly unseated Indira Gandhi.
While Pakistan kept the Kashmir issue alive, the Indian right cultivated Hindu majoritarianism—together destabilising Indian politics through the 1980s and '90s. Movements like Ram Janmabhoomi, paired with Pakistan-sponsored militancy in Kashmir and Punjab, created a perpetual crisis environment—one that was only partially resolved through the economic liberalisation of the early 1990s, initiated under the West-aligned leadership of Manmohan Singh during Narasimha Rao's tenure.
Congress's Transformation and BJP's Rise:
Narasimha Rao understood that the old Nehruvian Congress was incompatible with globalisation and its economy. Like Rahul Gandhi in 2012, he effectively dismantled his party's ideological legacy to make way for political change—paving the way for the BJP's ascendancy. Ironically, when the West's long-groomed right wing finally assumed power, it was led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee—a moderate Nehruvian who tempered the BJP's more radical neoliberal impulses.
This ideological moderation prompted the West to revert to its trusted technocrat, Manmohan Singh. His second stint as Prime Minister saw aggressive liberalisation and controversial policies—such as mercenary SEZ policies to enable corporate rural land acquisitions. At one point, his home minister, Chidambaram, contemplated even bombing adivasis to oppress their resistance. Singh, while a consistent ally of the Western liberal order, was never fully embraced by the Indian Right, which had by then become the principal political vehicle of U.S.-backed capitalism.
Two Competing Capitalisms: U.S. vs EU Models
A critical distinction exists between U.S.-driven capitalism and its European counterpart. The U.S. model views welfare as a charity, while the European model insists on codified social rights. Sonia Gandhi's National Advisory Council (NAC) leaned toward the latter, legislating entitlements like the Right to Food, Education, and Land—directly challenging U.S. economic orthodoxy.
By 2011, as the NAC deepened its commitment to the European model, similar movements globally were challenging U.S. hegemony. In response, U.S. strategy evolved. Recognising the growing power of digital ecosystems, it pivoted toward narrative control through social media, moving beyond structural reforms to embrace psychological and communicative warfare.
They invested in platforms that simulated decentralised, community-like interactions—infused with parochialism but packaged as universal. Long-form, rational discourse (once dominant on Facebook) was systematically eroded by fragmenting the communicative landscape into superficial formats: image-sharing (Instagram) and punchy, emotion-driven statements (Twitter). The shift was not accidental—it mirrored the symbolic economy of U.S. capitalism, which prefers chaos and individualism to structured, rights-based communication (as in the EU model).
Social Media and Global Political Realignments:
Between 2012 and 2014, this recalibrated media strategy paid global dividends. Twitter's short-form narrative warfare destabilised many nations. The new "gossip without substance" format undermined legitimacy, displaced deliberative discourse, and elevated populist strongmen.
Across the globe, U.S. - Right-wing aligned leaders emerged—many drawn from corporate or right-wing ranks: Trump (USA), Macron (France), Bolsonaro (Brazil), Shinzo Abe (Japan), Enrique Peña Nieto (Mexico), Tony Abbott (Australia), Matteo Renzi (Italy), Erdoğan (Turkey), Park Geun-hye (South Korea), Netanyahu (Israel), and Modi (India), among others.
In India, the installation of Narendra Modi marked the culmination of decades of U.S. investment in Hindutva. Foreign policy was entrusted to Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, a U.S.-friendly diplomat, even as Sushma Swaraj retained the nominal title of Foreign Minister. The real decision-making apparatus operated out of the Prime Minister's Office, coordinated by Ajit Doval—who had earlier founded the pro-West Vivekananda International Foundation with support from ex-military personnel.
Second Term: Geopolitical Balancing Act:
By Modi's second term, India faced complex challenges. While maintaining alignment with the West, the government navigated:
-Energy security amid sanctions on Russia,
-Escalating border tensions and trade imbalances with China,
-Delicate diplomacy with the Islamic world and OIC, especially given Pakistan's influence.
India diversified energy partnerships—turning to former Soviet states like Armenia—and made significant headway in alternative energy development. In foreign policy terms, these were notable successes achieved without compromising the pro-Western core of the regime.
Global Shifts and Cracks in the Model:
The model began to falter when many of these U.S.-backed strongmen lost power. Trump was voted out. Bolsonaro was imprisoned. Shinzo Abe was assassinated. Others, like Park Geun-hye, were impeached. The only figures who retained their grip were those who had fused nationalism with religious or racial politics—like Netanyahu and Modi.
Despite the turbulence, Doval and Jaishankar's foreign affairs team delivered one key achievement: decoupling Indian foreign policy from its Pakistan-centric trap—a legacy of Cold War containment strategies. However, this success was undermined by a strategic blind spot: the alienation of India's immediate neighbours.
Strategic Failures and Isolation :
India's pro-West posture led to estrangement from neighbours—who in turn deepened ties with China. The consequences became stark after the Pehalgam attack: none of India's neighbours nor its Western ally stood firmly by its side. Despite years of diplomatic investments and huge trade orders to the Western power, India found itself isolated now—scrambling to dispatch parliamentary delegations worldwide in search of support.
This was a diplomatic catastrophe. Indian foreign policy, shaped by right-wing ideological loyalty to the West, particularly to the U.S. right wing, had led the country into geopolitical isolation. India had regressed to a pre-2014 status quo—trapped once again in Pakistan-centric diplomacy, albeit now without reliable allies.
Lessons Un/learned:
Instead of introspection, the Indian Right doubled down. Today, when the government planted media narratives tried to project a course correction (the news clipping given above), a senior RSS functionary who is also the go-between the government and the RSS proudly announced his participation at a Western right-wing conference—boasting that he was the only non-Western (read: racist non white) organisation represented in the conference. This marked the continuation of ideological submission—what might be described as India's "yes-master" voice within the Western right-wing political sphere. What was promised as an independent, strategic India had become little more than a loyal outpost in the larger architecture of Western ideological warfare or orthodoxy.
While the long-term outcome of the U.S.'s five-decade investment in India's right wing remains uncertain, the entrenched subservience of the Indian right to American right-wing interests appears far from waning. The Biden administration made a brief attempt to recalibrate this alignment, but the resurgence of Trump-era politics has cast renewed doubt on any enduring shift. Moreover, with the ongoing threat of China in the region, India's current trajectory toward global isolation must be critically assessed for its long-term implications—particularly for the future of right-wing politics and its leadership in the country. So, this anti-West posturing looks more like a pretension than a real one.
No comments:
Post a Comment