Modi’s brand of personal diplomacy was one of the year’s staples. In January, Barack Obama became the first US president to visit India twice while in office. The two countries announced agreements on implementing the 2008 India–US nuclear deal and carbon emissions. Over the year Modi took 16 foreign trips, soliciting investment and technical cooperation from Japan to Silicon Valley, wooing the Indian diaspora and finalising defence purchases with traditional suppliers France and Russia. Continuing efforts to promote the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) saw the founding of a new development bank with funding of US$50 billion provided equally by all five members.
But India’s relations with its neighbours remained strained. Although a boundary dispute with Bangladesh was resolved and those with China were put on the back burner, ties with Nepal deteriorated dramatically. And ties with Pakistan continued to be turbulent. Talks were scheduled and cancelled, low level hostilities intensified, reduced then spiked again. Contact resumed at the Paris climate talks and Modi’s surprise Christmas Day visit to Pakistan earned gushing headlines. But, as some pointed out, this was preceded by a trip to Afghanistan, where Modi personally delivered Indian-made weapons systems, raising hackles in the Pakistani defence establishment.
Domestically the priority was on economic policy. Modi promised a pro-business agenda and sought to deliver on deregulation, facilitating investment and reducing spending. The budget was praised by business as taking modest steps in this direction.
Yet more ambitious proposals requiring statutory or constitutional changes failed to pass the upper house. These included a bill making it easier for companies to declare bankruptcy, another to ease land acquisition for public projects, and the introduction of a national General Sales Tax. In the end, the actions of the much-respected head of the central bank received more favourable attention than those of the prime minister.
One controversial area in the government’s economic policy has been social welfare spending. The government initially proposed to cut the preceding government’s signature employment guarantee program by limiting its application to poor districts, but shelved this in the face of opposition. Yet outlays for the program have been whittled down and reports of beneficiaries not receiving payments have become common. This is indicative of the government’s approach to social welfare generally.
The government’s challenges in parliament stem from the fact that the upper house is elected by state legislatures, a majority of which are controlled by opposition parties. The BJP’s losses in two crucial states, Delhi and Bihar, that it had won in the national election, bode poorly for its ability to pass legislation in the future. In Delhi the BJP lost to a new ‘good government’ party, while in Bihar it was defeated by a coalition led by a former regional ally. The elections indicated the potential for an alternative to the BJP that is not led by the once-dominant Indian National Congress.
The Congress itself remains in a permanent state of crisis. The party is still led by the Nehru-Gandhi family, contributing to organisational paralysis. Party elections are never held and new leaders rise only with the favour of the Gandhis, while their critics leave the party.
Adding to its woes, the Modi government was accused of intimidating its opponents, in both parliament and civil society. Former Congress prime minister Manmohan Singh as well as Sonia and Rahul Gandhi were prosecuted for corruption. And, citing security concerns, the government implemented new restrictions on non-governmental organisations receiving funds from foreign sources.
Conflict occurred over many issues. Conflict over caste quotas, eating beef — which many Hindus oppose for religious reasons — and religious conversion were especially challenging as in many cases the tensions stemmed from demands by BJP supporters. Modi was slow to comment in most instances, but there has been robust resistance from opposition parties, civil society, courts and even officials. Leading writers returned honours bestowed on them to protest the government’s tolerance of sectarianism. The courts stepped in on more than one occasion to uphold civil liberties. And the Bihar election, fought partly over religious conflict, showed the potential for an explicitly anti-sectarian political program to win.
At the same time there has been a marked decline in popular belief in democracy in India, even compared to other countries. As revealed by the World Values Survey, India has seen a 30 per cent increase over the last two decades in those who do not express faith in democratic methods. The great peril is that the impatience to ‘get things done’ will lead to more support for the kind of authoritarian impulses that seem to be on the rise elsewhere in the world.
Arun R. Swamy is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Guam.
This article is part of an EAF special feature series on 2015 in review and the year ahead.
Hi Arun,
Thank you for a well written article. Having worked a bit with the Indian market and certain foreign companies developing operations in India during the last five years or so, I believe that many reporters and commentators (both in India and outside) set the bar and expectations so high following N. Modi’s election victory that one forgets what an huge task his government has at so many levels, managing and developing such a large country and population.
I think that the issue of whether democracy is suited for India’s current development needs is sometimes borne from a true sense of frustration at the pace of economic development etc. But I think that N. Modi’s government has tried to alter many perceptions to increase foreign investment, encourage investments, crack down on bureaucratic inefficiency etc. However, the demands and task at hand are huge, in China they are now simply shutting down critical opinions or worse throwing critics in jail!!
Hi Marc: thanks for your comment. I certainly agree that people often put unrealistic expectations on a newly elected leader — not just in India — and are often too impatient for quick results. With respect to Modi, however, I think two things are worth mentioning in this regard. First, the high expectations he is being judged by are his own extravagant promises. Second, the performance of the preceding government on all these fronts was, but any account, impressive (including the fastest sustained period of economic growth in India’s history), but this has never been acknowledged by Modi or his party. With respect to democracy and the comparison to China, I am not sure what you are saying. Are you suggesting that people put too little value on maintaining democracy when comparing India to China, or that they are putting too much emphasis on potentially undemocratic aspects of Modi’s rule when it is still better than China? I can read it either way, and therefore have no response.
Is Modi ‘guilty’ of a failure to attend to and/it follow up on the admittedly complex details and domestic dynamics that underlie the kinds of social and economic challenges that India faces? Does he prefer to make a grand gesture of some kind that looks good initially but then fails to attend to the implementation of the specifics? If he is not inclined to manage/administer these things on his own, why does he not appoint subordinates who can/will? Otherwise, the public will grow weary of these grand gestures that turn out to be largely words but no actions.
Dear Richard: thanks for your comment. To be fair to Mr. Modi, , while there are many grand gestures that fall short of their goal, and the public may well weary of them, the problem is not simply a lack of follow-through, a failure to delegate to experts, or of management. Some of the challenges are fundamental political obstacles stemming from the democratic process. For example, as the article explains, the upper house is controlled by opposition parties and they do not agree with his economic agenda.