Just after 1:30pm on Friday last week, the loudspeaker outside Sarai Alawardi mosque crackled to life, and more than 1,000 foreheads were touched to the hessian mats that lined the ground. Towering over them were the skyscrapers of Gurgaon, a satellite town south of Delhi that houses technology companies, bowling alleys and other symbols of the “new India.”
A day after Hindu nationalist Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi claimed a landslide election victory, some in the congregation were anxious about whether this new nation had a place for them.
“These days, it isn’t safe for us here any more,” said Haji Shezhad Khan, the chairman of a local Muslim activist group, sitting in a shaded courtyard a few meters from the mosque.
For many Indian Muslims — whose population of about 200 million would comprise the seventh-largest nation on Earth — Modi’s emphatic re-election has been an isolating experience.
The country’s most acrimonious election campaign in recent history was studded with references to unauthorized migrants from Bangladesh as “termites,” the nomination to parliament of a Hindu accused of terrorism and a debate over whether Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin — who killed India’s founding father for supposedly cowing to Muslim demands — was in fact a patriot.
Despite this, or perhaps because of it, a record 270 million Indians cast their votes for Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) or its allies.
“We truly believed it would be fought back,” said Nazia Erum, an author who has written a book about raising a Muslim child in today’s India. “We believed that a lot of voting that happened in 2014 was based on Modi’s development agenda and people would be able to see through it now and things would be different, and as it turns out we were entirely mistaken.”
Friction between Hindus and Muslims, as well as tension among sects within both faiths, has been a persistent feature of Indian life.
However, over the past five years violence against Muslims has increased, including at least 36 killings by “cow vigilantes” of cattle farmers and traders accused — usually spuriously — of harming the revered animals.
In Gurgaon, where hundreds of thousands of Muslim migrants have in the past few years arrived along with Hindus to work in factories and on construction sites, tension has been boiling over.
Bitter campaigns have been waged against Muslims praying in public spaces because mosques have no capacity or are too far away. Sanctioned prayer spaces have been gradually whittled down to just more than three dozen after protests by Hindu organizations.
“They are not allowing us to pray,” Khan said.
Rajeev Mittal, the head of a Hindu nationalist group that has campaigned against mosques in the area, said that his campaign is strictly about upholding municipal planning laws.
“We are not against people offering prayer, but it should be done in the mosque or in all the areas designated for them,” he said.
The BJP points to statistics that show there have been no large-scale religious riots under Modi’s leadership, and no surge in bias crimes in the nation’s official data — although some rights groups say that this information is patchy and unreliable.
The effect of Modi’s rule has been to embolden extremists, his critics say, and create a culture where religious chauvinism and impunity can flourish.
“More than riots, Muslims fear the pinpricks,” Human Rights Watch South Asia director Meenakshi Ganguly said. “It’s the Muslim vegetable vendor who is suddenly beaten up, it’s when Muslim families say they are worried about taking lunch boxes, because they don’t know when they’re going to be accused of carrying beef.”
“People feel entitled to impose their voices, and to do so violently, and there is no assurance the state will step in and protect them,” Ganguly said.
Modi’s supporters and opponents alike recognize that his victory on Thursday last week is the cementing of an ideological shift in what is soon to be the world’s most populous nation.
Most elections are a choice between competing visions, but India’s polls this year were, in the words of Indian Legislator Shashi Tharoor, a Congress party member, “a battle for India’s soul.”
In dispute is a century-old argument about the myths that should fuel Indian nationalism.
The nation’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, surveyed the extraordinarily diverse subcontinent and conceived it as a parchment “on which layer upon layer of thought and reverie had been inscribed, and yet no succeeding layer had completely hidden or erased what had been written previously.”
Opposing him were Hindu nationalists such as Vinayak Savarkar, an atheist, but one who viewed Hinduism in its innumerable manifestations as a set of cultural practices that bound the subcontinent’s people together as a single nation.
His vision left little room for Muslims or other minorities.
“Mohammedan or Christian countrymen ... are not and cannot be recognized as Hindus,” Savarkar wrote in a 1923 treatise. “Their holy land is far off in Arabia or Palestine. Their mythology and godmen, ideas and heroes are not children of this soil.”
The modern Hindu nationalist movement has evolved from Savarkar’s views, said Rajat Sethi, a fellow at the India Foundation, a think tank aligned with the right-wing Hindu umbrella group, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), of which Modi is a lifelong member.
“Savarkar talks about a more militarized Hinduism... The RSS would say, no, it’s about culture,” Sethi said. “Hinduism is a community based on shared culture practices rather than a dogmatic book.”
In this way, he said, Muslims and Christians were also Hindus: their lifestyles and rituals also inflected by India’s Hindu civilization.
“Muslims form an integral part [of the nation], because a lot of what we stand for is incomplete without Muslims as a religion,” Sethi said.
The ostensibly “secular” politics of Nehru’s Congress party was really a byword for courting Muslim votes by giving the community special privileges, he added, such as political autonomy for Kashmir, and the right to govern marriages and other social affairs according to Islamic law — both of which Hindu nationalist groups target for reform.
Nehru’s vision now appears to be in terminal decline. The Hindu nationalism he tried to sideline, including by banning the RSS, has been granted a clear popular endorsement.
Its worst excesses might be borne by the poor, but wealth and privilege are no shield, said Erum, who researched her book by interviewing more than 100 children and their parents at some of the nation’s most elite schools.
“It’s happening in classrooms, in playgrounds: Kids are bullied on religious lines, they are reflecting the fractures in our society,” she said. “It’s happening in the best schools, the most metropolitan cities. This is no longer the fringe.”
Erum blames in part the nation’s 24-hour news channels, which, along with social media, fixate on divisive issues that draw eyeballs but promote a vision of a nation in perpetual argument.
“It is an unending culture war,” she said. “Growing up in India was one of the best experiences.”
“Religion was not a factor you considered when you played or shared tiffins, but now it is,” Erum said.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers